Is photographic integrity dead? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

J Ney

3-Nov-2009, 16:19

I can just imagine 100 years from now when 3-dimensional holographic cameras are all the rage and folks will be pining over the good ole days of 2-D digital photography with those antique Nikon D2x's.

I wonder if contact-printers in the 1800's scoffed when enlargers started becoming popular... "Look at those knuckle-heads... too lazy to carry around an 8x10 or 11x14 camera," they would say, "you lose so much resolution enlarging and it is just cheating."
Basically, technology changes with time and digital photography is photography but it is a different beast than the analog silver-gelatin photography that I practice and love. And this may get me scolded or shunned, but I still don't understand folks that go through all the time & effort of LF photography and then just throw the negatives in a scanner and fiddle with them in PS before printing them on inkjet but still consider themselves film photographers. Rather, they are smart, economical, and patient digital photographers.

At any rate, sorry for the rant but photography is photography and there are dozens of different techniques... many of us on this forum happen to be practitioners and fans of a certain type of photography. Let's not look down our noses too much.

stehei

3-Nov-2009, 16:23

let's see,
I use a petzval that manipulates
the image like crazy, a developer
to push the contrast, and I use
reflectors to guide light in a way
I like it,

Yes, I'm a manipulator!!! ;)
So bye bye integrity

rdenney

3-Nov-2009, 16:51

Didn't we have this same discussion about 3 weeks ago?

Has it been that long?

The integrity comes from realizing that photography-as-truth is a myth even with no post-process manipulation (except the framing, and the back story, and the exposure, and the focus, and the selection of film, all of which manipulate reality).

Rick "feeding the troll" Denney

r.e.

3-Nov-2009, 16:59

I think that we are headed for a time when digital capture will be used to create images that are very distant from the methodology and content of traditional photography. It is already starting to happen, and it wouldn't surprise me if a word other than photography is invented to describe the process, the kind of image, or both.

There are images on photo.net, flickr, etc. that I would not feel comfortable describing as photographs, and while these images mostly strike me as being both amateurish and in bad taste, they are a harbringer. At a more professional level, my sense is that there is some pretty amazing stuff being done with digital capture, pehaps moving away from what we understand as photography, both in the still world and the cinema world.

What may happen is that we end up with something called photography that is created from analog or digital capture, and something that is also the result of digital capture, but so different from what we understand as photography that we invent a different word for it.

Donald Miller

3-Nov-2009, 17:10

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

bdkphoto

3-Nov-2009, 17:14

i agree, hybrid inkjetters pumping out magazine pages , calling themselves photographers. lol

get a dictionary and drop the photographer term ,a inkjetter not a photographer

is that a real photograph?...

no its a inkjet lol

Pablo-welcome back, no matter what name you post under you are still nuts.

Kirk Gittings

3-Nov-2009, 17:19

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well said. FWIW it seems most of these recent threads have been started by relatively new members who must not be aware that these same topics have been regurgitated over and over and over again for years here. For all newcomers, this forum has long accepted digital as a vital part of the photographic arsenal.

Kirk Gittings

3-Nov-2009, 17:22

Pablo-welcome back, no matter what name you post under you are still nuts.

Interesting, I'm not the only one who noticed the similar command of the English language. LOL.

Kerik Kouklis

3-Nov-2009, 17:29

Oh good grief. When I see the phrase 'digital manipulation' used in a post like this, it brings only one image to my mind, and that image has nothing to do with photography and everything to do with a little onanistic self-gratification.

Nice word, Clay. I had to look that one up!

r.e.

3-Nov-2009, 17:31

For all newcomers, this forum has long accepted digital as a vital part of the photographic arsenal.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that isn't my recollection. Not so many years ago, there used to be some humdinger posts on the very legitimacy of digital discussion on this site.

It is true that the management of the site was in no hurry to embrace the anti-digital brigade, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't an issue.

When were the categories "Digital Hardware" and "Digital Processing" added, do you know? My recollection may be faulty, but I think that there was quite a lag between when sites like photo.net recognized the digital reality and when this site did.

Marko

3-Nov-2009, 17:36

Well said. FWIW it seems most of these recent threads have been started by relatively new members who must not be aware that these same topics have been regurgitated over and over and over again for years here. For all newcomers, this forum has long accepted digital as a vital part of the photographic arsenal.

Seems to me that they either don't care or do it exactly because of it. What is kind of funny in a sick way is that these kinds of threads started picking up sharply as of late. Could it be the economy so the trolls have more time on their hands?

dwross

3-Nov-2009, 17:42

Well said. FWIW it seems most of these recent threads have been started by relatively new members who must not be aware that these same topics have been regurgitated over and over and over again for years here. For all newcomers, this forum has long accepted digital as a vital part of the photographic arsenal.

But, but, but! (she sputtered). Isn't that exactly the point of a forum such as this? I can't be considered a newcomer to anything but maybe AARP, and I'd absolutely hate it if LF were solely that demographic. How will LF stay alive if we poo-poo the honest and legitimate philosophical questions of new members. And, hell, they might even have an insight or two worth listening to.

d

r.e.

3-Nov-2009, 17:43

Hans, and here I thought that in your first two posts you were making fun of the idea that a person who makes inkjet prints isn't a photographer.

It didn't even occur to me that you might be serious.

dwross,

Yes, I think that the question was sincere too, and I can only hope that the person who asked it has a fairly thick skin given the schoolboy pack mentality to which he/she has been subjected.

I don't happen to agree with him/her, but I do believe that there is something to the question raised that is not quite so self-evidently stupid or repetitive as some think. It's clear that some of the people who responded didn't even understand the question.

Greg Blank

3-Nov-2009, 17:48

Digital imaging and artistic expression with it is fine, making money from it is, fine as well. ;) It's just not photography, never has been, never will be.

Well said. FWIW it seems most of these recent threads have been started by relatively new members who must not be aware that these same topics have been regurgitated over and over and over again for years here. For all newcomers, this forum has long accepted digital as a vital part of the photographic arsenal.

Brian Ellis

3-Nov-2009, 18:25

Since there has never been any integrity in photography, integrity isn't dead because it was never alive to begin with.

Brian Ellis

3-Nov-2009, 18:36

Greg Blank

3-Nov-2009, 18:39

Yes humans can have integrity. If electronics don't have integrity they don't work.

If structural steel looses its integrity the building may fall down. Consider those things next time you vote for an elected official ;)

In the old days humans were less squeemish about feeling a little pain, now a days getting a hang nail is cause for concern.

everything has integrity, humans have integrity (if they choose to) steel and electronics do not

Kirk Gittings

3-Nov-2009, 19:05

Digital imaging and artsic expression with it is fine, making money from it is, fine as well. ;) It's just not photography, never has been, never will be.

Dude....:) ....so when I travel to say northern New Mexico to do a magazine shoot and bring my 5D11 camera for the color magazine shoot and the Phillips 4x5 camera to do some personal b&w photography, at some point in this uninterpreted image making journey (which entails switching between cameras and even stitching some DSLR shots for personal b&w prints when I run out of 4x5 film), I cease to be a photographer using cameras making photographs? I come home and process files for the magazine and develop film and scan the film and tweak the files, printing some traditionally and some digitally and at some point I am not a photographer making photographs? When I hang a show of both digital and traditional prints it is not a photography show? When I teach architectural photography classes with both DSLR cameras and view cameras at some point I am not teaching photography in the photography department to photography students? Could have fooled me. They are all just tools with different strengths and weaknesses for photographic image making and I wouldn't trade any them (unless a better tool comes along).

paulr

3-Nov-2009, 19:27

Isn't there supposed to be a weekly vote on who gets kicked off the island?

And is this the requested graphic?

http://paulraphaelson.com/downloads/deadhorse.gif

clay harmon

3-Nov-2009, 19:33

Why I am wasting two minutes of my life posting this is a mystery even to me, but here goes:

The idea that a process or technique possesses integrity is what is called a category error in semantics. (Look it up on wikipedia, I am running out of my two minutes). The property you call integrity is a human property, one that springs from our belief in volition and consciousness, and not a property of a process or procedure or piece of hardware. The use of the process may involve a set of choices that involves the concept of integrity, but the process itself is neutral. One can tell pretty lies with a film camera just as easily as with photoshop. UYFB. (the B stands for brain, and the U stands for use, if that is any help)

Kirk Gittings

3-Nov-2009, 19:37

"Why I am wasting two minutes of my life posting this is a mystery even to me, but here goes"

Yeah I got sucked in too.

Should we have a special section for PHOTO THEOLOGY?:)

tgtaylor

3-Nov-2009, 19:54

Should we have a special section for PHOTO THEOLOGY?:)

That would be redundant as its pantheon is already well embedded in the forum and consists of the usual suspects Kodak, Fuji, Wisner, Toyo, Lindhoff, Chamonix, Nikon, Rodenstock, Gitzo...

Jim collum

3-Nov-2009, 19:55

Oh hell, it's this idiot again.

not sure yet.. he hasn't repeated the same post a dozen times in the same thread.... :)

Merg Ross

3-Nov-2009, 20:12

It is refreshing to at last see a new topic for discussion!

As my short reply to the OP, I would suggest that digital manipulation has as much to do with photography as silver manipulation.

As to integrity, I have never considered that as a virtue related to photography. Integrity relates to the individual.

And lastly, what is "Fine Art Photography"?

Toyon

3-Nov-2009, 20:18

Yawn...

In digital there is a zero for every one.

Greg Blank

3-Nov-2009, 20:30

I would say that being a photographer one can use a digital camera, which was not my original drift. After all you are imaging onto a light sensitive device. One could be prefixed by Film Photographer or Digital photographer I guess if it matters.

However we both know the two devices analog versus digital produce a different result. Whether one is better was not my drift either. I use digital & film cameras, as well, and lenses that could create an image either way.

A digital sensor however computes based on algorithmic input that some technician placed in the brain of the device. Silver responds to light according to natures physical laws in a more lineal fashion than a man made algorithm which requires geometric progression to produce a lineal representation of the original scene. Which is different than a direct lineal light strike on a subatomic level.

So for me in technical terms they are quite different. I prefer to reserve the term photograph when describing the results the earliest photographic chemists assigned to "fixing" shadows. :)

Dude....:) ....so when I travel to say northern New Mexico to do a magazine shoot and bring my 5D11 camera for the color magazine shoot and the Phillips 4x5 camera to do some personal b&w photography, at some point in this uninterpreted image making journey (which entails switching between cameras and even stitching some DSLR shots for personal b&w prints when I run out of 4x5 film), I cease to be a photographer using cameras making photographs? I come home and process files for the magazine and develop film and scan the film and tweak the files, printing some traditionally and some digitally and at some point I am not a photographer making photographs? When I hang a show of both digital and traditional prints it is not a photography show? When I teach architectural photography classes with both DSLR cameras and view cameras at some point I am not teaching photography in the photography department to photography students? Could have fooled me. They are all just tools with different strengths and weaknesses for photographic image making and I wouldn't trade any them (unless a better tool comes along).

Marko

3-Nov-2009, 20:33

In digital there is a zero for every one.

Wow!

Here is the most succinct explanation I have seen to date for all these luddite threads!

:rolleyes:

jim kitchen

3-Nov-2009, 20:34

Should we have a special section for PHOTO THEOLOGY?:)

My office calls that category "File Thirteen (13)..."

The garbage can.

jim k

Marko

3-Nov-2009, 20:35

A digital sensor however computes based on algorithmic input that some technician placed in the brain of the device. Silver responds to light according to natures physical laws in a more lineal fashion than a man made algorithm which requires geometric progression to produce a lineal representation of the original scene. Which is different than a direct lineal light strike on a subatomic level.

And here is another one, although not as concise.

Marko

3-Nov-2009, 20:36

Isn't there supposed to be a weekly vote on who gets kicked off the island?

And is this the requested graphic?

http://paulraphaelson.com/downloads/deadhorse.gif

This is not even a discussion, this is far beyond most of those threads that call for the horse image.

So may I humbly suggest another one?

http://48pixels.com/images/dnftt.gif

:)

Greg Blank

3-Nov-2009, 20:36

Yes reading another person's mind is a scary thought and you have made that point perfectly clear.

What a bunch of jerks. If you had bothered to read the question you would have seen that I was asking about the departure from what is achievable photographically to what is only achievable digitally and then passing it off as something done photographically. I guess I should have realised that I would be dealing with amoebic organisms whose vision doesn't extend past the end of their nose and have a tendancy towards lynch mob mentality in justification of their own inadequacies.

Jim collum

3-Nov-2009, 20:38

I
However we both know the two devices analog versus digital produce a different result. Whether one is better was not my drift either. I use digital & film cameras, as well, and lenses that could create an image either way.

A digital sensor however computes based on algorithmic input that some technician placed in the brain of the device. Silver responds to light according to natures physical laws in a more lineal fashion than a man made algorithm which requires geometric progression to produce a lineal representation of the original scene. Which is different than a direct lineal light strike on a subatomic level.

So for me in technical terms they are quite different. I prefer to reserve the term photograph when describing the results the earliest photographic chemists assigned to "fixing" shadows. :)

but every emulsion produces a different result. .there's no 'film'.. but many different ones.. and nothing 'real' about how any of them capture light. Each emulsion captures light/color based on a chemical engineer's idea of how that specific emulsion should. Likewise, every emulsion is chemically altered during development based on how the photographer wants to portray the image they've captured.

Greg Blank

3-Nov-2009, 20:46

jim kitchen

3-Nov-2009, 20:49

tgtaylor

3-Nov-2009, 20:50

but every emulsion produces a different result. .there's no 'film'.. but many different ones.. and nothing 'real' about how any of them capture light.

But...

Everyday reality is what you 'see' and what you see are light waves creating an image in your brain. Simarily, light ('reality') enters thru a lens and strikes the emulsion and, in a fraction of a second, traces in infinite detail the 'reality' you precieve in your mind.

Greg Blank

3-Nov-2009, 20:50

Hehe; I think you have to do the process that makes you happy and thats mostly what matters. (Better :) ?

And here is another one, although not as concise.

Jim collum

3-Nov-2009, 21:02

But...

Everyday reality is what you 'see' and what you see are light waves creating an image in your brain. Simarily, light ('reality') enters thru a lens and strikes the emulsion and, in a fraction of a second, traces in infinite detail the 'reality' you precieve in your mind.

.. yes.. but my point was that once the light hits the emulsion, it's altered.. the first time based on a chemical engineer's idea of what is appealing (which is usually very different from reality.. take Velvia as an example). It can be altered again, when the decision on how to develop the emulsion comes into play.. and then again when printed onto paper. Why are these alterations any different from how an electrical engineer decides to convert the analog signal to digital.. or when the photographer processes the RAW file, and then alters it to their idea of what they saw onto paper. Emulsion is no more 'real' than silicon.

I could use your same statement and substitute silicon for emulsion.

Jim collum

3-Nov-2009, 21:14

Jim there are no but's about it. The two types of imaging are different, scientifically so.

With your premise the film makes the imagery that much more unique, and those that can consistently produce desired results all the more skilled....is that what you intended to say? ;)

each type of sensor is also different and unique.

color negative film, color transparency film, b/w negative, polaroid, wet plate.. there are too many different methods of capturing light chemically.. and all with different way of rendering reality. The chemical reaction alters what is captured... there's nothing 'real' about it.

The characteristics of those chemical reactions are the first steps the photographer takes in altering the reality the are seeing, to a different reality that they want to communicate to their audience.

Likewise.. different sensor's, different raw converters, different profiles, different papers.. also allow the photographer to change what is 'real' to what they want to communicate.

If your vision is only expressed with a specific film emulsion/developer/paper/developer combination.. then that's what you should be using.. Your choice doesn't make someone else's choices less valid in a way of communicating.

paulr

3-Nov-2009, 21:48

The idea that a process or technique possesses integrity is what is called a category error in semantics. (Look it up on wikipedia, I am running out of my two minutes)...

The trouble with these threads isn't the oppinions I disagree with (bring 'em on!) or the fact that we had this talk last week (such is life, or the internet). It's how depressed i get when confronted with peoples' pathological lack of logical reasoning.

It's not just when someone lacks logic; it's when they don't even recognize it when employed by other people. They imagine that their own nonsensical spray is on the same level as the other person's actual argument.

I'm left with this image of Socrates begging for the hemlock, after realizing that all of his students are actually gerbils.

Greg Blank

3-Nov-2009, 21:48

Your right nothing's real, the whole thread was dreamed about and it was a nightmare.

I am just glad I have negatives to prove I took pictures ;)

each type of sensor is also different and unique.

color negative film, color transparency film, b/w negative, polaroid, wet plate.. there are too many different methods of capturing light chemically.. and all with different way of rendering reality. The chemical reaction alters what is captured... there's nothing 'real' about it.

The characteristics of those chemical reactions are the first steps the photographer takes in altering the reality the are seeing, to a different reality that they want to communicate to their audience.

Likewise.. different sensor's, different raw converters, different profiles, different papers.. also allow the photographer to change what is 'real' to what they want to communicate.

If your vision is only expressed with a specific film emulsion/developer/paper/developer combination.. then that's what you should be using.. Your choice doesn't make someone else's choices less valid in a way of communicating.

rdenney

3-Nov-2009, 21:55

What a bunch of jerks. If you had bothered to read the question you would have seen that I was asking about the departure from what is achievable photographically to what is only achievable digitally and then passing it off as something done photographically. I guess I should have realised that I would be dealing with amoebic organisms whose vision doesn't extend past the end of their nose and have a tendancy towards lynch mob mentality in justification of their own inadequacies.

The problem is with the term "integrity". I take that to me that the underlying definition is violated when the integrity is lost.

Since I learned a new word on this forum, let me use it. Photography is photography because of the indexical relationship between a subject and an image. Because it is the light emanating from a subject that produces the image, and because we use a camera to effect that relationship, we call it (by the definition intended by the creators of the term) photography. We actually have to be there, in front of the subject, to make the image.

Painting does not have that indexical relationship, because it is not the subject that creates the image, but rather the hand of the artist.

The indexical link does not, I wouldn't think, mean that what one sees on the image is necessarily what one would see looking at the subject. If the subject is out of focus, the image will be a blur. The blur is absolutely created by projecting light from the subject, so the indexical connection is still there. We still had to be there to create it.

So, we have a latent image that maintains the indexical relationship to the scene. Now, we violate that relationship by changing things, sometimes rather dramatically. When I dodge a print (or develop it to, say, N+2), I'm changing the relationship between bright and dark to one that did not exist in the subject, so the indexical link is undermined. That change did not require me to be there, even if the underlying image did. But I think the indexical link that defines photography is that the lines and shapes are drawn by projection of light onto a sensitized surface, not by the hand of the artist. By tradition, we have not included changing the values of those details as part of the definition of photography, as people use the term. (And how people use a term and what they think it means is really all that counts.)

When I take several negatives and print double or triple exposures onto a print, then I'm not violating the indexical relationship at all. All the edges and shapes one sees on the print were produced by direct projection, even if the image was made up of several of those projections. We've done that forever and nobody ever doubted that it was photography.

There is nothing about digital capture that undermines the indexical relationship. Even in post-processing, we can make many choices that change values, which we do not think makes the work non-photographic. But when we use the draw tools and start drawing things, we have violated the indexicality of photography, and created some hybrid artwork that includes several media.

Thus, to me, even cloning does not make it non-photographic, if all the elements were created by projecting light using a camera. But that one dances right on the line.

When people draw stuff using drawing tools, so that the lines and shapes in the image are no longer created by light projection from the subject, then I think those lines and shapes lack those indexical relationships that define them as photographic.

Of course, we could do that without digital help. The digital tools just make it easier.

One digital process is unique, and that's the use of fractal mathematics to add the appearance of detail when upsampling an image. Sometimes, the resulting artifacts are similar to those produced by compression algorithms. The compression algorithm doesn't lose the indexicality--it's just one of many distortions in the process. But the fractal additions do violate the indexicality, it seems to me. They do not require a direct connection to the subject at all. The detail they add seems to me non-photographic. But many digital processes, though unavailable in traditional processes, do not undermine the indexical link to the lines and shapes.

And thus I think I can evaluate all my procedures to determine which are photographic (by maintaining the indexical link to the lines and shapes in the image, but not necessarily the tones), versus those that are not photographic. I don't think those could be categorized as "only analog" or "only digital"--the boundary seems unrelated to the line between analog and digital.

Now, back to your original point, to the extent that I could discern it. There are approximately 14.6 bazillion images on Flickr. I'm sure some of them are not photographs as all, and others are clearly photographs. And some are montages of photographic element and non-photographic elements. Maybe someone will define those montages as a photograph without qualification. Is that a loss of integrity? If they insist they didn't add those elements when they did, it is--they are lying. If they don't insist that, then maybe they just haven't thought about it. Maybe they use the word "photograph" without having thought about what it means.

Until you identify concrete examples, I think such generalities as above, which have been hashed and rehashed at frequent intervals, are all there is.

Rick "suggesting orthogonally that when all the receivers pick up a particular signal, maybe that's what the transmitter sent, whether intended or not" Denney

percepts

3-Nov-2009, 22:09

Rick "suggesting orthogonally that when all the receivers pick up a particular signal, maybe that's what the transmitter sent, whether intended or not" Denney

That's one interpretation. Another is that once one of the dogs in the pack starts baying all the others join in without knowing why.

Ben Syverson

3-Nov-2009, 22:31

Percepts, what exactly are you getting at with this question? Because it reads as almost purely inflammatory to me.

Rick and the (many) others are right -- "integrity" is a problematic (if not downright irrelevant) concept in an artistic context, and there's nothing outrageously new or different about digital when it comes to plasticity. There have been photographic hoaxes going back to the dawn of photography.

So what are you really asking here?

J Ney

3-Nov-2009, 23:28

Rick and the (many) others are right -- "integrity" is a problematic (if not downright irrelevant) concept in an artistic context, and there's nothing outrageously new or different about digital when it comes to plasticity.

I'd be interested in knowing how folks define "integrity"... to me, it means being explicitly honest even when it may not benefit you and when others may not know the difference. As it pertains to this post, as long as digital photographers identify their photographs as "digital" then I think they are having integrity.

Ben Syverson

3-Nov-2009, 23:36

I'd be interested in knowing how folks define "integrity"... to me, it means being explicitly honest even when it may not benefit you and when others may not know the difference.
Define "honest." You may have the best intentions but you can still unintentionally mislead.

Jim collum

3-Nov-2009, 23:40

I'd be interested in knowing how folks define "integrity"... to me, it means being explicitly honest even when it may not benefit you and when others may not know the difference. As it pertains to this post, as long as digital photographers identify their photographs as "digital" then I think they are having integrity.

I don't understand why this would be relevant. There's never been any requirement to say "analog"... What I shoot.. whether with a film camera or digital camera.. is a photograph. Frankly, it's about as interesting as knowing what brand paintbrush was used, and whether it's sable or synthetic. Why is this labeling important.. there's no inherent value of one over the other... they're *TOOLS*.

There have been some outstanding images by gandolfi in the Alt Process thread.. beautiful images. whether they started out as digital capture or analog capture.. whether a film negative was used or digital negative... is irrelevant to the beauty of those images.

tgtaylor

3-Nov-2009, 23:47

.. yes.. but my point was that once the light hits the emulsion, it's altered.. the first time based on a chemical engineer's idea of what is appealing (which is usually very different from reality.. take Velvia as an example). It can be altered again, when the decision on how to develop the emulsion comes into play.. and then again when printed onto paper. Why are these alterations any different from how an electrical engineer decides to convert the analog signal to digital.. or when the photographer processes the RAW file, and then alters it to their idea of what they saw onto paper. Emulsion is no more 'real' than silicon.

I could use your same statement and substitute silicon for emulsion.

Look at it this way: When the reflected light from the image (subject) strikes the emulsion it traces or draws the subject on the emulsion. It's called a 'latent image.' When that same light, on the other hand, strikes silicon, it doesn't draw a latent image on the silicon as it does on the emulsion. Instead the incoming photons create an electrical charge the value of which is stored in the pixels (think buckets) from which a software program then draws an image based upon the value of those stored charges. Although the end results are the same - an image is produced - the two processes are fundamentally different. Again, the original light emanating from the subject draws the image on the film emulsion while a software program draws the image in the digital process.

Which method is the 'better' is a subjective call but for me having the original light itself draw the image has more romantic appeal.

J Ney

3-Nov-2009, 23:59

I don't understand why this would be relevant. There's never been any requirement to say "analog"... What I shoot.. whether with a film camera or digital camera.. is a photograph. Frankly, it's about as interesting as knowing what brand paintbrush was used, and whether it's sable or synthetic. Why is this labeling important.. there's no inherent value of one over the other... they're *TOOLS*.

There have been some outstanding images by gandolfi in the Alt Process thread.. beautiful images. whether they started out as digital capture or analog capture.. whether a film negative was used or digital negative... is irrelevant to the beauty of those images.

I do understand what you are saying, but folks will indicate their work as "platinum print" or "dye-transfer print" etc... And these are appropriate distinctions, as would be marking a digi print as such. I'm not demeaning it, but let's call it what it is. I won't get into the relevance of this information for archival purposes but that is a legitimate requirement for fine art photography.

rdenney

4-Nov-2009, 00:06

Which method is the 'better' is a subjective call but for me having the original light itself draw the image has romantic appeal.

It's the romantic appeal that drives most of these arguments. People just hate to give up something they are used to, especially if what replaces it is easier and more powerful to the point where they feel it may invalidate their their hard-won skills. One might sympathize, but the sympathy wears thin when the defense is to invalidate the new technology altogether. Then, the people who have spent the effort to gain some mastery over the new technology feel invalidated, and the next thing you know they are rolling around on the floor pummeling each other.

What annoys me is that few are as honest as you and state that their motivations are driven by romantic appeal, and stick to their illogical constructs with implacable dogmatism. They may not even realize it themselves.

The notion that a latent image has to be a chemical thing seems to me quite arbitrary. Why isn't the digital information, stored and as yet unprinted, not also latent? Latent means that the work of recording the image has been done, but the work of making the image visible has not yet been done.

And in any case, there is nothing in the definition of photography as the term is understood by nearly everyone that includes a requirement for a latent image. What is required is that the image be stored, somehow, for later display--that's what separates photography from the camera obscura.

Defining the latent image narrowly, or even requiring that there be a latent image per se and not merely a means of storing the image, seems to me an ex post facto attempt to redefine photography to include what one does and exclude what others do, motivated by feelings often not expressed. Integrity, indeed.

I still like the definition provided by the Collins Children's Dictionary: A photograph is a picture made using a camera. That definition seems completely consistent with the indexical link between the subject and the lines and shapes in the image. It is the camera that enforces the indexical link, and the ability to store the image that makes it a photograph and not...performance art.

Rick "thinking skill is to be valued for its own sake, out in the open" Denney

rdenney

4-Nov-2009, 00:14

I do understand what you are saying, but folks will indicate their work as "platinum print" or "dye-transfer print" etc... And these are appropriate distinctions, as would be marking a digi print as such. I'm not demeaning it, but let's call it what it is. I won't get into the relevance of this information for archival purposes but that is a legitimate requirement for fine art photography.

Every print I've ever seen in a gallery was quite specific about the print method: "Giclee" if they are being pretentious or "pigmented ink on paper" if they are being a bit less so. I never see anything in a gallery or museum that describes how the negative or original image was made. They describe only the tangible thing hanging on the wall--what it's made of, not how it was made.

Rick "who owns a fair number of photographs bought from galleries or the artists themselves" Denney

Jim collum

4-Nov-2009, 00:20

I do understand what you are saying, but folks will indicate their work as "platinum print" or "dye-transfer print" etc... And these are appropriate distinctions, as would be marking a digi print as such. I'm not demeaning it, but let's call it what it is. I won't get into the relevance of this information for archival purposes but that is a legitimate requirement for fine art photography.

I sell platinum prints and inkjet prints. whether they originated from digital or analog capture is irrelevant to the print itself. Archival? who know what will last.. there was a time where everyone though Cibachrome was the be all in color archival.

Most galleries I've been to have no problem in labeling their prints as inkjet (usually archival inkjet, or archival pigment inkjet), and the top tier photographic galleries have no problem in selling them at a premium price. You'll have no problem in finding inkjet prints being sold for more than platinum prints. A Jeff Wall inkjet will bring more than a Jim Collum platinum :) It's the value of the image that's more important than the process itself.

Struan Gray

4-Nov-2009, 01:15

Look at it this way: When the reflected light from the image (subject) strikes the emulsion it traces or draws the subject on the emulsion. It's called a 'latent image.' When that same light, on the other hand, strikes silicon, it doesn't draw a latent image on the silicon as it does on the emulsion. Instead the incoming photons create an electrical charge the value of which is stored in the pixels (think buckets) from which a software program then draws an image based upon the value of those stored charges.

In fact, there is no difference at all in the way that light 'draws' on sensitised silver halide crystals and the sensor wells on an imaging chip. We use the same mathematics to describe both, and it is no surprise (to me at least) that the first widely accepted quantum mechanical description of the light absorbtion process in photographic emulsions was developed by Neville Mott, who won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to solid state physics.

The distinction you make (and Greg, in a more entertainingly ramblecrappy way) is based on romantic imagination, not science. The difference between the way emulsions and chips make images lies not in how the light is captured, but in how the excited charges are read out: in the one case chemically, in the other electrically. We evil scientists are busy blurring the distinction there too, for example by making solar cells which generate electrical current using the methods of photographic emulsions, and for many practical purposes there is now no difference between chemistry and physics. Even before that, technicians worked on emulsion chemistry to tune image characteristics just as intensively as they now work on algorithms for noise reduction or image compression. The only difference is that they don't *need* to wear white coats any more.

The appeal to science to resolve an aesthetic dispute is not new. Neither is the fact that the appeal misunderstands the very science it advances as evidence. What is interesting about these photographic debates - as compared for example to the garbage spouted by artists about relativity or fractal geometry - is where the attention is focussed: the light capture. To me, that says something deep about what people feel they are doing when they make a photograph. The indexality of the photographic process seems key to the emotions as well as the intellect.

Stephen Willard

4-Nov-2009, 01:42

I think that word integrity, ethics, or honesty as applied to photography is really only relevant to representational photography such as nature photography, landscape photography, portrait photography or wildlife photography. In these applications the photographer is making an implied statement of authenticity, and that the images are real live experiences. Clearly, if the same image were shot with different films, digital sensors, or printed using different methods, then there would be slight differences in the final print, however the basic optical reality of the lens should be preserved and identical in all instances.

It is only when photographers alter the optical reality of representational photography using powerful digital tools and fail do declare that they have done so, do they violate the integrity of the image. For example when different skies are painted in from the original scene, then the image is no longer representational nor is it a real experience. If the photographer exhibits the image and says nothing about the changes he has made, and it is obvious that the viewer will interpret the image as representational, then the photographer has mislead his constituent and created a lie. His ethics are to be questioned and the integrity of the images has been corrupted.

Are digital photographers altering the optical reality of representational images and presenting them as the real thing? It is my belief that this practice is absolutely rampant among digital representational photographers. It is also my belief that the long term effect of this unethical behavior is that digital representational photography will not be taken seriously. Digital representational photography will be viewed as suspect and treated as an act of narcissistic ego rather then an act of artistic passion about ones body of work.

Recently there was an article in the my local paper about a digital wildlife photographer who had just claimed he had photographed the “First Colorado wolverine sighting in 90 years, and the first at Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP)”. His photograph was printed in the paper, and the article talked about his amazing experience, how the wolverine was tracked by GPS migrating form Yellowstone to Colorado, and how he intended to market the image and promote his work. At the end of the article, it did mention that he had photographed wolverines before in a special wildlife park photographers pay a fee for photographing animals. It also mention that the some of the biologist in RMNP thought the image was a fake. I called one of the RMNP biologist and asked if he thought the photograph was a fake. He told me that the article was misleading because all of the biologist thought it was a digital fake. I asked why, and he said that if you look closely at the photograph in the newspaper you will see that the wolverine has no GPS collar on it.

Clearly, none of the things discussed above are applicable for photographs that are not representational in nature.

Rodney Polden

4-Nov-2009, 03:00

In fact, there is no difference at all in the way that light 'draws' on sensitised silver halide crystals and the sensor wells on an imaging chip.

Well, the Wikipedia definition of a photograph says:
"A photograph (often shortened to photo) is an image created by light falling on a light-sensitive surface, usually photographic film or an electronic imager such as a CCD or a CMOS chip."

Of course there are many types of light-sensitive surfaces, including silver bromide paper. Hence we have the photogram, as produced by for instance Man Ray. By the standards of many of the posters who have contributed, a photogram is a photograph now. (For newcomers reading about photograms for the first time, I will just say that the light falls on the sheet of paper, but is blocked by the object resting upon the paper when the paper is exposed. When developed, silhouettes of the objects remain in white, on a black ground.)

Equivalently, a sheet of ordinary newsprint is light-sensitive as we can see by leaving a sheet of newspaper out in a sunny place for a week with a brick or something similar resting upon it. Remove the brick, there's your "photograph". Starting to feel a little queasy yet about this new broadened definition?

Equivalently, our skin of course is light-sensitive - that's why we tan. The young lady who peels off the band-aid from her shoulder after a day at the beach and reveals the shape of a band-aid, yes, you got it, under our new regime of "anything can mean anything", SHE is the photograph.

Don't you really think that life was a lot more straightforward when we treated words as if they had a meaning, that didn't automatically stop MEANING something just because some genius somewhere invented a new but mostly unrelated technology?

If I get my son who's six to help me bang in some nails, and while I'm busy with a hammer, he picks up a hairdryer and whacks those nails in, does it mean he's right when he says "But Dad, they're all just TOOLS, as long as they bang nails in, why can't I call it a hammer?"

Some may say, wiki's definition is not restrictive enough, so for instance, Rick returns to his own favourite: "I still like the definition provided by the Collins Children's Dictionary: A photograph is a picture made using a camera." So if I rub some paint onto the camera and then press the camera onto paper, which I frame and sell as a photograph (Large Format? - of course, the camera was an Ebony), then that's still coming acceptably within our definitions? That's a photograph now, is it?

How about what we all used to call movies? You got it, they're PHOTOGRAPHS. For some curious reason however, the makers of movies didn't expend all the energy that is invested by, errm, 'digitalists' into trying to convince everyone that their 'moving pictures' were photographs. Instead they got on with developing a new form, a new medium, which almost everyone now recognises as related-to, but distinct from, the photograph. They were not shy or reluctant about creating a new vocabulary, new terminology for the new form.

Masons who take up carpentry don't go around saying "yeah, I do masonry with wood", I don't think. So why does it seem like pulling teeth to get a digitalist (well, you find a better word, that's the point) to let go of the apron strings of photography and figure out a name for what that new thing actually is. The real name of the game is... Clarity, and conflating one meaning with another does nothing to serve either.

Struan Gray

4-Nov-2009, 03:32

Starting to feel a little queasy yet about this new broadened definition?

No. All your examples of alternative light-sensitive surfaces can be found in the photographic press, in museum collections of photography, and on photographic discussion boards. I've done the suntan one myself.

Even if you don't accept those outliers as photography, you will have a hard time convincing me of the utility of defining 'photography' as unambiguously as, say, the Poincaré Conjecture.

And even if you must do that (and hence place yourself a long way from the mainstream of even traditional analogue photography), my point was that your argument is not helped by appeals to the science of light capture. Bandying words like 'photon' about might look cool down at the art club, but it leads to pratfalls in front of a knowledgeable audience.

Oh, and you might want to look up the etymology of 'movie'.

Paul_C

4-Nov-2009, 03:51

How about what we all used to call movies? You got it, they're PHOTOGRAPHS. For some curious reason however, the makers of movies didn't expend all the energy that is invested by, errm, 'digitalists' into trying to convince everyone that their 'moving pictures' were photographs.

And I'll take a movie over one of those silly talkies any day. Or, even worse, one of those digital-motion-picture-with-sound things (have they even picked a new name yet? Geez.)

r.e.

4-Nov-2009, 06:52

And I'll take a movie over one of those silly talkies any day.

What an apt reference. When movies with sound first appeared, many filmmakers/studios dug in their heels and continued to make silent films on the ground that talkies weren't proper movies and would never catch on.

The products of the new phenomenon were called talking movies, or talkies, to distinguish them from movies. When sound became the norm, these products took over the word movie. Now, when we speak of a film made before the advent of sound, we don't ue the word movie by itself, we use the phrase silent film or silent movie.

For quite some time, people have been using the phrase digital art to describe some digitally produced images. This is not some cult term; it is rapidly becoming mainstream. Do a google search on the phrase, and you will come up with about 20 million hits. I think that it is the right term to describe some of the images that I have seen that started out as captures from a digital camera or film camera followed by scanning. Indeed, it is my understanding that some at least of the people who are producing these images themelves prefer the term digital art over the word photograph to describe their work.

I do believe that the vast majority of analog and digital images, taken with a camera, are properly described as photographs, but as suggested in my earlier post, I also think that we are starting to see images that started as photographs but finished as images that can be called photographs only by using the word in a rather strained way. It is interesting that even the creators of these images, or at least some of them, aren't in a hurry to apply the word to their own work.

With respect to the word integrity, it has meanings that have nothing to do with morality. In fact, the first two definitions from the Shorter Oxford are as follows:

"1. The condition of having no part or element wanting; unbroken state; material wholeness, completeness, entirety.

"2. Unimpaired or uncorrupted state; original perfect condition; soundness."

So far, this thread has had over 1300 hits. The people who feel compelled to slam the person who started it and who seem intent on closing down the discussion might consider that they are contributing nothing of substance to a subject about which there is apparently interest, even if it is not their interest.

Emil Schildt

4-Nov-2009, 08:00

Nice word, Clay. I had to look that one up!

in danish, masturbation is called onani, so I knew the term...

It comes from the old testament where a guy called Onan were ordered by his father to impregnate his dead brother's wife.
he refused, and "spilt his semen on the ground"....

maybe he had integrity?
:)

Robert Hughes

4-Nov-2009, 09:02

For example when different skies are painted in from the original scene, then the image is no longer representational nor is it a real experience. If the photographer exhibits the image and says nothing about the changes he has made, and it is obvious that the viewer will interpret the image as representational, then the photographer has mislead his constituent and created a lie. His ethics are to be questioned and the integrity of the images has been corrupted.

Nah. Even St. Ansel painted out portions of his images. Did he inform everybody about the airport sign he took off the "moonrise" prints? Did his image manipulation corrupt the picture and cause me to question his integrity?

Did Walker Evans' alarm clock really ruin that mantle piece photo? Or did I care in the least before the issue was mentioned? Had the alarm clock been added in post production, would it have been more or less of an affront to our sensibilities?

Digital representational photography will be viewed as suspect and treated as an act of narcissistic ego rather then an act of artistic passion about ones body of work.

Holy Ned! Imagine what these guys would have done to Rembrandt! His use of lighting and shadow to focus attention on areas of his painting flies in the face of representation, yet the subjects of the painting would probably have considered their likenesses to be quite faithful to the original.

r_a_feldman

4-Nov-2009, 09:19

Painting does not have that indexical relationship, because it is not the subject that creates the image, but rather the hand of the artist.

The indexical link does not, I wouldn't think, mean that what one sees on the image is necessarily what one would see looking at the subject. If the subject is out of focus, the image will be a blur. The blur is absolutely created by projecting light from the subject, so the indexical connection is still there. We still had to be there to create it.

I’d like to divert this thread a bit, and get people to think about how we see the world represented in two dimensions and what the relationship between between painting and photography might be.

I’m currently reading the book “Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters” by the British artist David Hockney (which I can highly recommend reading). In it, he argues that since at least the 1430s, many painters (including Caravaggio and Vermeer) have used optics (such as concave mirrors, lenses, camera oscuras, camera lucidas) as aids in making their paintings; other contemporary artists who didn’t use optics were influenced by the optical effects and included them in their work. Hockney argues that the painters used the optics to fix “landmark” points of the scene, such as a subject’s eyes, nose and corners of the mouth, and then filled in the details by hand. Artists also used optics to record foreshortened objects and surface detail, such as textile patterns on a folded garment. This part of his argument is strong, IMHO. As Rick notes in the first quote above, it is the hand of the artist that created the painting, but the view of the world the artist has was nonetheless through a lens or reflected by a concave mirror (which acts like a lens).

A main point that Hockney makes is that what we consider realistic paintings are in fact major distortions of reality created by using optics. Optics reduce what is seen to a two-dimensional representation viewed from a single point at a single time. What we see in our minds is more multi-dimensional and multi-time: in our mind, we can view the scene from a number of different viewpoints or times. The Cubists understood this, and Hockney argues that Cubism was a reaction against a photographic way of viewing the world that was enshrined in French Academic painting of the last half of the 19th Century. Hockney also argues that the painting techniques of chiaroscuro and single-point perspective were developed using optical aids--an image projected by a lens onto a flat surface will show deep shadows and parallel lines as convergent or divergent, which is why (to bring the thread back to LF) we use the Zone system to record shadow detail and use swing and tilt in our view cameras to “correct” the perspective “distortion.”

Hockney attempts to graph the relationship between using optics and producing paintings. Since the 1400s, some artists (e.g., Vermeer, Ingres) have been closer to the “optical” line in his graph and others (e.g., Michelangelo) farther away. Cubism begins a wide divergence from the optical line. When Hockney comes to movies, television and digital images, his “optical” and “artist” lines split and intertwine in a confusing mass of scribbled lines – Hockney is not sure where digital imaging will lead, although he thinks it might take some art back closer to “reality.”

Lastly, Hockney makes an important point by calling what Niepce, Daguerre, and Fox-Talbot invented “chemical photography,” to distinguish it from the use of optical aids in art that preceded it. To Hockney, photographs are just as distorted a view of reality (two-dimensional, single point of view, single point in time) as are most Western paintings made after the 1430s and before Cezanne.

(In relation to Rick’s noting image blur, Hockney argues that we can see it in Vermeer’s painting “The Milkmaid”, which Hockney argues was painted using optical aids. In that painting, some details appear to be out of focus and the highlights are painted with halos, as one would see in an out of focus optical projection.)

Bob (Who likes what Rick has written) Feldman

Donald Miller

4-Nov-2009, 09:20

I personally believe that all of those who think that one form or photography is inherently more possessing of integrity or more "real" (whatever that may mean) than another form should choose that form of photography and go to work shooting forensic photos for their local police department and leave the rest of us that want to express ourselves in some creative manner the hell alone.

Donald Miller

Kirk Gittings

4-Nov-2009, 09:35

Did he inform everybody about the airport sign he took off the "moonrise" prints?

I agree with your point about Ansel (he was not against removing distracting elements in the darkroom) but.....I have read, I think, everything written about this image, and visited the site many many times and photographed the area extensively (I used to work north of there and passed by it hundreds of times over the course of many years in the mid 70's) and I have never seen either an airport or a related sign. In the foreground is an old Hispanic farming village, Hernandez. In the 40's the population was maybe 50 families? It is still tiny now. The foothills in the background above the Chama River are still to this day undeveloped Indian reservation land of San Juan Pueblo (there may be a casino near there now). Where was the airport? Why would there be an airport? Even the biggest nearby town Espanola didn't have an airport. Where did you read this? I can't believe I have missed this.

Robert Hughes

4-Nov-2009, 09:52

Where did you read this? I can't believe I have missed this.
"I don't recall", heh - it came up in discussion for a class I took a few years back at Photoworks, Glen Echo Park, MD. What the instructor told us was that AA and his assistants had to touch up every print of "Moonrise, Hernandez" (or maybe it was a different photo, but it was a famous one) to delete the airport sign.

Or maybe I read it on the Internet - so you can be sure it was true. Or not, depending... talk about integrity!

EDIT: Merg Ross (below) has the answer - it was the Lone Pine photo. Thanks - I knew it out there somewhere:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_H1CT-3mB3m0/SH072IVr0ZI/AAAAAAAAADs/RA0GjqfXaeo/s400/Close-up_LonePine_OldVersio.jpg

paulr

4-Nov-2009, 09:55

Bandying words like 'photon' about might look cool down at the art club, but it leads to pratfalls in front of a knowledgeable audience.

We love you, Struan.

Merg Ross

4-Nov-2009, 10:04

I agree with your point about Ansel (he was not against removing distracting elements in the darkroom) but.....I have read, I think, everything written about this image, and visited the site many many times and photographed the area extensively (I used to work north of there and passed by it hundreds of times over the course of many years in the mid 70's) and I have never seen either an airport or a related sign. In the foreground is an old Hispanic farming village, Hernandez. In the 40's the population was maybe 50 families? It is still tiny now. The foothills in the background above the Chama River are still to this day undeveloped Indian reservation land of San Juan Pueblo (there may be a casino near there now). Where was the airport? Why would there be an airport? Even the biggest nearby town Espanola didn't have an airport. Where did you read this? I can't believe I have missed this.

I believe this may be a reference to Ansel's photograph from Lone Pine, "Winter Sunrise". The letters "LP" were on the hillside, and he worked the negative and print to remove them.

Paul_C

4-Nov-2009, 13:31

Now, when we speak of a film made before the advent of sound, we don't ue the word movie by itself, we use the phrase silent film or silent movie.

As a genre, yes, just like we use "foreign film" or "action flick." Not as a separate medium. They're still movies.

(And, not surprisingly, people don't bother distinguishing between movies shot on film vs. those shot digitally.)

In any case it doesn't matter what you, me, or any individual here thinks the word "photography" means - meaning is given to language by popular use. (Yes, at the rate we're going "loose" will eventually become an accepted spelling of "lose.")

Meaning is not dictated by the dictionary, it's reflected by it.

As for integrity, wikipedia puts it far better than I could:

In an absolute context, the word "integrity" conveys no meaning between people with differing definitions of absolute morality. It becomes nothing more than a vague assertion of perceived political correctness or popularity, similar to using terms such as "good" or "ethical" in a moralistic context.

One can also speak of "integrity" outside of its prescriptive meaning in reference to a person or group of people of which one subjectively approves or disapproves. Thus one can describe a favored person as "having integrity" while describing an enemy as "completely lacking in integrity". Such labeling, in the absence of measures of independent testing, renders the accusation itself baseless and (ironically) others may call the integrity of the assertion into question.

BetterSense

4-Nov-2009, 13:53

As a genre, yes, just like we use "foreign film" or "action flick." Not as a separate medium. They're still movies.

Yes, and they should call them movies. It does annoy me when some skateboarder puts a video on youtube and the intro credits say "A so-and-so film". Yeah. Film.

r.e.

4-Nov-2009, 14:28

I can just imagine telling the British director Michael Winterbottom, who has made some of the more adventuresome and interesting films of the last decade, that the features and documentaries that he has made in whole or in part with video cameras aren't films.

Can we call features that have been shot on emulsion, but processed digitally, films, or are they not films either?

If they aren't, we're pretty much at the point where nobody is making films anymore, which would certainly be news to the people who keep buying tickets to see them, not to mention all those film critics.

:)

Robert Hughes

4-Nov-2009, 14:43

This happened long ago, but still... from a "recent film" -

http://www.panelsonpages.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jump_the_shark.gif

rdenney

4-Nov-2009, 15:39

As for integrity, wikipedia puts it far better than I could:

I don't like the Wikipedia definition at all. Of course, such wiki entries don't necessarily reflect any scholarship or authority.

To me, integrity means that one is true to his principles. A person who knowingly violates his own principles is behaving without integrity, etc.

Thus, one could use the term in the photographic context to describe images made using purely photographic processes, as opposed to images made using non-photographic processes.

That's why I spent some time thinking (out loud) through my definition of "pure photographic processes". And I concluded that processes that use lines and shapes original made by projecting light onto a sensitized surface are purely photographic, and therefore any process that uses that mechanism can be called photography without any loss in integrity.

My definition does not include photograms, which are made by projecting light around the subject rather than from the subject, which is a useful enough distinction if one needs to be made. But that is a red herring in the context of the OP's question.

The notion that a photograph's indexicality is limited by time is only partly true--many beautiful photographs are time exposures where movement during the exposure creates completely unrealistic but still entirely indexical images. Those photographs illustrate clearly the importance of that indexical connection.

Artists who used a camera obscura to trace image details did not use that projected light to record the image, but rather as a guide for applying paint or charcoal by hand. So, they used the camera obscura to add an indexical element to their paintings. It is interesting that the indexical link even in that case was enforced by a camera. But without the sensitized surface to effect the storage, it was not a photograph. The Collins definition for children still works--the picture was not made using a camera, the picture was made using a brush. The camera was used as an aid.

Rick "a former professional draftsman who knows how to draw accurate perspectives without a camera obscura" Denney

Paul_C

4-Nov-2009, 15:55

I don't like the Wikipedia definition at all. Of course, such wiki entries don't necessarily reflect any scholarship or authority.

To me, integrity means that one is true to his principles. A person who knowingly violates his own principles is behaving without integrity, etc.

Read more of the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity). You and it agree more than you think.

(Of course, your position doesn't necessarily reflect any scholarship or authority.. I wonder if you'd have included that bit if you agreed with the quote you read.)

percepts

4-Nov-2009, 16:04

At what point in time did the meaning of the word photography change?

‘photography’, etymology of, from photos (ϕοτοσ), light, and graphos (γραοσ), writing, delineation, or painting. Although ‘heliography’, ‘photogeny’, and ‘daguerreotypy’, were first used as alternatives, ‘photography’ eventually gained universal precedence as the preferred name. First published by the German astronomer Johann von Mädler in the Vossische Zeitung, the name appears to have occurred to Charles Wheatstone and Sir John Herschel independently in England. (Hercules Florence in Brazil had already used the term photographie—albeit to describe a cameraless process—in his experimental notebooks in 1833-4, but these were not discovered until much later.) Herschel had long been the authority on new nomenclature, and his use of the term in ‘Note on the Art of Photography’, 14 March 1839, was a catalyst for its adoption as a properly inclusive name for both ‘photogenic drawing’ and ‘daguerreotypy’.

It seems to me that due to the lack of imagination of digital manipulators they have decided to steal the word for their own use. Or pehaps are afraid of being honest about what they are doing. Or maybe it just hasn't occured to them that what they are doing is not photography.
Inflamatory? No just reminding people that if they don't have the integrity to be up front about what they are doing then they will be suspect for hiding the fact. What have they done wrong? Nothing. So why hide behind something else? What are you afraid of? Is being a digital artist something dirty or demeaning? You seem to want to embrace it, then why not celebrate it. What's your problem?

Paul_C

4-Nov-2009, 16:07

What's your problem?

the problem is all yours

percepts

4-Nov-2009, 16:24

the problem is all yours

Oh really? I have no problem whatsoever with using digital cameras and / or scanning and/or digital printing. What I do have a problem with, is where the original capture has been so fundamentally altered that it ceases to be a photograph and becomes a piece of digital art but is passed off as a photograph. That indicates a lack of integrity on the part of the creator in my world. You don't like that? Tough. The public will decide. But you would be wise to remember that the public don't like being duped.

Paul_C

4-Nov-2009, 16:26

the problem is all yoursOh really? ... What I do have a problem with...

yes, really.

rdenney

4-Nov-2009, 16:26

Read more of the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity). You and it agree more than you think.

(Of course, your position doesn't necessarily reflect any scholarship or authority.. I wonder if you'd have included that bit if you agreed with the quote you read.)

The answer to that is that I never use a Wiki entry in a debate without explaining why I agree or disagree with it. That way, anyone reading my post is empowered to decide for themselves. That is usually more trouble than it is worth. In fact, I can't remember when I used a Wiki entry as support for a debate, though I have used it as a resource for providing mere facts when I thought they were accurate.

Had I agreed with the part you quoted, I'd have felt no need to challenge it. That would not, of course, constitute an endorsement of Wikipedia on my part.

I have extensively contributed to several Wikipedia entries, including one concerning my professional expertise where my credentials are frankly the equal of anyone in the world, and I eventually gave up trying to keep silliness from working its way in. That experience informs my use of Wikipedia and my willingness to challenge something I see there. Please don't consider that an attack on you--I don't intend it as such.

Rick "who mostly used the disagreement as an opportunity to draw the link between the integrity and the definition of 'purely photographic'" Denney

Paul_C

4-Nov-2009, 16:28

Please don't consider that an attack on you--I don't intend it as such.

Not taken as such :)

Kirk Gittings

4-Nov-2009, 16:35

At what point in time did the meaning of the word photography change?

There never was a question amongst the general public about whether digital was photography or not. Digital cameras made pictures of their grandma just like their film cameras did. Kodak, Canon, Nikon et al sold it as photography from day one. No one "stole" the term (using your inflammatory language). It became general usage from the inception of digital capture. It was a logical evolution of the term in the face of changing technology. It is generally accepted worldwide except amongst a small percentage of traditional photographers who....I don't know what.......want to be seen as some special class of image makers? Upholders of the true religion?

Here is the current definition from Merriam-Webster, a definition which reflects the generally held view.

Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: \fə-ˈtä-grə-fē\
Function: noun
Date: 1839

: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)

Whether digital is photography or not was settled years ago as a result of the marketing of the big photo companies and the perceptions of the public.

BrianShaw

4-Nov-2009, 16:44

In all honesty, I marvel at the passion and intelligence expressed in this thread. But if I once again try reading it from beginning to end in an attempt to fully understand the complexity of the issues I think I might "loose" my mind. :)

Robert Hughes

4-Nov-2009, 16:47

...you would be wise to remember that the public don't like being duped.
... thus explaining the overwhelming popular preference for documentary and straight news on television. :rolleyes:

percepts

4-Nov-2009, 16:53

Whether digital is photography or not was settled years ago as a result of the marketing of the big photo companies and the perceptions of the public.

Well yes the perceptions of the public and they do have them. Some don't care and some do. And what about the art buying public and collectors? Do you think they care if an image has been photoshopped to the nth degree and passed off as a photograph?
Or are they just after some wall art and couldn't care less how it was made or if there is some "photographic integrity" in what they are purchasing? Well if they are a collector of photography they just might care and would likely be pretty pissed off to find that what they bought was not what it purported to be.

rdenney

4-Nov-2009, 16:59

At what point in time did the meaning of the word photography change?

Where in your quote does it actually define photography? All I see are etymological references, not what the word actually means. I hope you aren't defining it according to its Greek roots. Of course, the roots of words in no wise dictate their meaning.

Webster's Big Dic definition of "photograph" is (unhelpfully): a picture or likeness obtained by photography, which requires looking up "photography", which is defined in the common way: "the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)"

This is a decent definition that I think matches what the "man on the street" would mean when using the word. So, when you wonder when the definition changed, I would think that question should be posed to them. I suspect that Webster generalized the definition to "sensitized surface" because the means by which the image is stored doesn't affect the meaning of the word to the average person. But I also think that "the action of radiant energy" is a little broad--it would certainly include photograms and other images that most people would not think of as photographs.

I find that the only people who argue that digital image making using cameras is not photography are photographers. That's where the onanism comes into play.

When you bring up these basic definitions, though, you take the debate back to just the place where the early responders thought you were going. You reacted to their reactions, with the statement that your issue was, in particular, the cavalier way in which digital photographers might alter details of the images and still describe them as photographs. Some of us tried to address that topic with some (hopefully) careful thinking, but then you go back to the base definition argument, which really is just another rehash. So, what is the point you are trying to make?

Rick "still feeding the troll" Denney

rdenney

4-Nov-2009, 17:14

Well if they are a collector of photography they just might care and would likely be pretty pissed off to find that what they bought was not what it purported to be.

You are putting up a straw man. Most art that is passed off as photography, even if digital stem to stern, is not made up of computer-generated drawings. It is just what it purports to be, with no more manipulation than any fine-art photograph might have received throughout photographic history. Again, do you have specific examples in mind?

But there is a general morality about lying. If a person draws so well that the drawing can't be distinguished from a photograph, what advantage is there to present it as a photograph and not a drawing? In such cases, most artists would call it a drawing (painting, computer art--whatever) and brag about their photo-realistic skills. If it is a montage of purely photographic elements from various photographs, then I think most artists would call it such (a photographic montage).

I agree that there is sometimes (not always) an implication that a photograph is a plain representation of the scene, but that implication has nothing to do with digital versus analog. It has to do with whether the photograph was manipulated in non-photographic ways, in accordance with the definition of the word most people understand. So, if one portrays a picture of zebras (to mention one famous example) and it turns out that it was a picture of zebra that was cloned to create a herd, then most would feel duped and be upset by the lack of integrity on the part of the photographer. But that doesn't make what he produce any less photographic. When you tie the artist's integrity to the definition, you are sinking an anchor into shifting sands. Take another tack.

Rick "thinking 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' covers the morality well enough" Denney

JeffKohn

4-Nov-2009, 17:18

Do you think they care if an image has been photoshopped to the nth degree and passed off as a photograph?Have you looked at an issue of Camera Arts, Color, or Aperture lately?

theBDT

4-Nov-2009, 18:32

yes, really.

This is true on so many levels :D

jnantz

4-Nov-2009, 18:36

i am sure the daguerreotypist were just as ticked off
when people started using wet plates ...

r.e.

4-Nov-2009, 19:35

What I do have a problem with, is where the original capture has been so fundamentally altered that it ceases to be a photograph and becomes a piece of digital art but is passed off as a photograph.

Well this gets us back to the question of what the difference is between a photograph and a piece of digital art. In my view, it is a completely legitimate question.

There are plenty of images being produced that have either no relationship, or a very tenuous relationship, to what we understand to be photographs. There are also books, and tutorials in publications like Photoshop Magazine, on how to make these images. There is a demand for it.

It is also true that some people who make these images, especially participants on sites like photo.net, call them photographs, and that other people making these images prefer to call them digital art.

I think that the issue arises because Photoshop is not just a tool for photographers; rather, it is also a tool for illustrators and plastic artists, and from their perspective, a photographic image may be nothing more than a starting point. It also helps to understand that Photoshop is just part of a suite of tools, and that there are people - a lot of people - who use those tools collectively/interdependently.

This means that one of two things has to happen. Either the word photograph must be expanded to include images that are not traditionally regarded as photographs, or some other word - digital art seems to be catching on - must be found to describe these images.

I would like to think that the public knows what the difference is between a traditional photograph and this other kind of image, but even if they do now, I'm not so sure that they will over time. I do see discussions on photo.net and elsewhere that suggest to me that a lot of people have a much more expansive idea of what photography is than most, if not all, of the people on this forum.

I'm also not sure what turns on any of this as a practical matter. If the word photography comes to encompass more than it does today, so be it. The one thing that I am sure of is that this has nothiing to do with integrity in the moral sense of the word. That said, I do understand why some photographers might have concerns about this trend from the point of view of the integrity of photography as a discipline. I don't share the concern, probably because I don't have a stake in the outcome, but I understand it.

al olson

4-Nov-2009, 19:50

...
The idea that a process or technique possesses integrity is what is called a category error in semantics. (Look it up on wikipedia, I am running out of my two minutes). The property you call integrity is a human property, one that springs from our belief in volition and consciousness, and not a property of a process or procedure or piece of hardware.
...

Sorry, but that is not entirely so.

integrity,n. [L. integritas, wholeness, soundness, from integer, untouched, whole, entire.]
1. the quality or state of being complete; wholeness; entireness, unbroken state.
2. the entire, unimpaired state or quality of anything; perfect condition, soundness.
3. the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity.

Clearly from definitions 1 & 2 objects can have integrity. Images have integrity to varying degrees. Certainly, mentioned many times in this thread, the camera image is not a perfect representation of the subject. Subsequently when the printer modifies the image he/she changes its 'unimpaired state or quality'.

I would claim that the more an image is manipulated, the addition of artifacts diminishes its original 'perfect condition'. Hence, a loss of integrity to various degrees. So then, whatever the OP intended to mean ... ? (yawn)

Now. About that man beating that poor sleeping horse ...

r.e.

4-Nov-2009, 20:10

This is the second time in this thread that someone has used Wikipedia as authoritative on language. God help us :)

percepts

4-Nov-2009, 20:16

Now. About that man beating that poor sleeping horse ...

The name of that Horse was Integrity... It's dead.

al olson

4-Nov-2009, 21:04

This is the second time in this thread that someone has used Wikipedia as authoritative on language. God help us :)

No, r.e. Not Wikipedia!
This definition is from Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition.
I hope that dictionaries are considered as an authoritative source on language.

percepts

4-Nov-2009, 22:27

No, r.e. Not Wikipedia!
This definition is from Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition.
I hope that dictionaries are considered as an authoritative source on language.

The Oxford English Dictionary and the Cambridge Dictionary certainly are. The foreign ones can be somewhat dubious...

Jim collum

4-Nov-2009, 22:57

At what point in time did the meaning of the word photography change?

It seems to me that due to the lack of imagination of digital manipulators they have decided to steal the word for their own use. Or pehaps are afraid of being honest about what they are doing. Or maybe it just hasn't occured to them that what they are doing is not photography.
Inflamatory? No just reminding people that if they don't have the integrity to be up front about what they are doing then they will be suspect for hiding the fact. What have they done wrong? Nothing. So why hide behind something else? What are you afraid of? Is being a digital artist something dirty or demeaning? You seem to want to embrace it, then why not celebrate it. What's your problem?

I'm not sure exactly what your stance is.. who is lacking in integrity.. where do you draw the line? it seems to change throughout this thread. Does capturing an image with a sensor qualify as a digital manipulator? processing the raw file? contrast change? clone/retouching? printing it onto inkjet? (or inkjet negative, and then printing via silver/platinum or some other 'analog' process)?

Kirk Gittings

4-Nov-2009, 23:38

What are the questions at this point? Some are arguing that any digital work is not photography. Some are arguing that digital manipulation to some degree is not photography. To me, schooled at art photography schools, these views lack any knowledge of the history of the medium, like Carlton Watkins burning in fake skies into his landscapes. The whole integrity thing seems incredibly simple to me-do you as an artist own your methods and intentions? When I was going to the university studying photography, there was no question what so ever that Jerry Ulseman's work was photography. I can't recall a single discussion (like this here) about that aspect of his work.
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f373/Wikidbchofthewst/Surreal/JerryUelsmann6.jpg
His work was widely collected as photography by collectors and museums around the world. He made no excuses for his methods. His work is far more manipulated than most of the manipulated digital work I've seen. So the question cannot be traditional=veracity and digital=deception. Yes, I have seen some digital photographers lie about the manipulation of their work, but I have also seen traditional photographers lie too (color photographers lying about the intense saturation in their Ciba prints for instance being "true natural" color). These were mainly people who sell to the general public. In that market there seems to be some perceived value to be truly and honestly depicting nature. I have not seen this deception in art museum venues, probably because most art curators are knowledgeable enough to know it is a BS issue.

For myself, even with traditional work I push tones so much that sometimes the scene is unrecognizable to someone who was standing next to me when I made the negative (actual true event!). But I have always been proud of those skills. After all, I think of myself as an expressive artist with photography not a documentarian (except when I am doing a HABS project-but even my commercial architectural photography is oftentimes pretty manipulated. I am trying to bring to life my architect clients' idealized vision).

The issue takes me back to Szarkowski's Mirrors and Windows, inferring that photography is either autobiographical (about the photographer-mirror) or about the observable world (window). If its a mirror then anything goes (ie its all personal expression) whereas if its a window some observable truth is implied. But even Szarkowski could not find firm boundaries or a clear sustainable orthodoxy in his vision of this dichotomy, because the intent of the photographer always seems to span both to some degree.

So frankly I don't understand the rational basis or perceived value for the deception about manipulation. Why are so many traditional and digital photographers afraid to own their artistic skills?

Struan Gray

5-Nov-2009, 01:40

We love you, Struan.

The gerbils were better :-)

Integrity to me means things like not passing game-farm animals off as wild, or photoshopping extra missiles and smoke clouds into news photos. More generally, it means not using my photographs to force people or places into pidgeonholes framed by prejudice or willful ignorance. Most of all though, it means being explicitly aware of the reasons why I am taking photographs and showing them to other people.

The inquisition are not going to come calling just because you or I disagree with a general definition of a term, and not following the herd sometimes has it's uses, but it is important to know how ones own opinions differ from the majority, and from the history of the medium. Photograms are a good example. I respect Rick's personal exclusion of them from his idea of what a photograph is, and I share some of his reasons for making the distinction, but they have been accepted by the photographic community almost from day one (Fox Talbot and Anna Atkins), and still are today. Ewa Stackelberg is just one example local to me, see here (http://gruppof.blogspot.com/2006/12/tale-for-living-part-one.html), but Susan Derges and Adam Fuss are better known internationally. All of them make prints that I would love to have on my wall.

My own photographs are usually straight. They are more like illustrations of my thoughts and ideas than attempts to create a purely graphic object. That partly reflects my own preference for journalism over poetry, but also my feeling that other media are better tools for purely imaginative expression. The saddest thing about the powerful techniques that digital photography puts at our disposal is how often they are used to make photographs less interesting by being more conformative to our most undemanding expectations.

Sometimes though a spark shines through (Peter Stenkvist (http://www.peterstenkvist.se/flyttfaglar.html) tickled my fancy recently). When that happens, the last thing I am thinking is whether or not such images are "really photographs".

r.e.

5-Nov-2009, 03:56

No, r.e. Not Wikipedia!
This definition is from Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition.
I hope that dictionaries are considered as an authoritative source on language.

Al, I was referring to the passage that you quoted, not your own post. Webster's is a fine dictionary, second only to the OED :)

r.e.

5-Nov-2009, 05:21

Kirk,

In this discussion, Ulseman is too easy an example. His work is steeped in traditional photography, being constructed from negatives and traditional darkroom methods. Arnold Newman, about as technically traditional as one can get, did the same kind of thing to construct his portrait of Andy Warhol. To be clear, I think that composite images, constructed from digital capture and manipulation in Photoshop, are also photographs. To take a concrete example, to say that Jeff Wall, whether one likes his work or not, is making photographs, is to my mind stating the obvious. I also share your view - if I have properly understood you - that the kind of work that Ulseman does, and for that matter what Jeff Wall does, is healthy for photography as an art.

I think that the hard case arises when the techniques of photography and the techniques of plastic art are combined to produce a single image. Let me give an example. A few days ago, there was a discussion on this site about Shepard Fairey's poster for the Obama presidential campaign. This poster was created by transforming a photograph of Obama. I don't know how Fairey went about transforming the image, but for the purpose of this discussion, I would like to propose that we assume that he carried out the tansformation, as he could have and may well have done, in Creative Suites, using Photoshop and perhaps other tools. Here is the question. Is Fairey's image a photograph? If so, why? If not, at what point did it cross the line to something else, and what is that something else? Does the question depend on whether Fairey calls it a photograph, or is there something inherent in a photograph, either in terms of content or technique - some objective criterion or criteria - that determines whether something is a photograph?

As I said earlier, I don't have a stake in the answers to these kinds of questions, and I don't have strong feelings either way. At the end of the day, I'm not even sure that the answers matter in any practical way. That said, I do think that the impact of digital capture and digital tools is going to have an impact on the future of photography that goes way beyond the kind of thing that Ulseman does. And this isn't the only field where that impact is going to be felt. For example, one could have the same discussion about motion pictures, and about the relationship beteween motion pictures and video games. Indeed, people do discuss these issues in those contexts, and take them more seriously than has been the case in much of this thread. The issues may or may not be of a theoretical, academic nature, but they are not trivial; and with the greatest respect, the discussion is not advanced by facile dismissiveness, such as the suggestion that certain views on these issues demonstrate a "lack [of] knowledge of the history of the medium".

r.e.

5-Nov-2009, 05:35

Struan,

I have a couple of photograms. I don't know whether they are photographs or not, but the William Stevenson Gallery, from which I bought them, tells me that they are, so that's good enough for me :)

Thanks for the reference to Stenkvist. I like hair #1 a lot. The sequence is witty and charming, could be illustrations in a children's book. Reminds me of one of the elements in one of Jeff Wall's photographs.

BrianShaw

5-Nov-2009, 09:01

When I was going to the university studying photography, there was no question whatsoever that Jerry Ulseman's work was photography. I can't recall a single discussion (like this here) about that aspect of his work.

Hey... is there a boy in that tree? Or is it just another hoax? Somebody should call the sherriff and the Air National Guard immediately!

percepts

5-Nov-2009, 10:22

When that image was made people wouldn't have questioned how it was made. They might even have applauded the craftsmanship. Today they will think, well so what? Any kid can do that with photoshop. In terms of what people can do today it just doesn't stand up. Digital art has gone way past that. So where and how should I be judging it. If its by todays standards then so what about it? If it's by pre digital editing standards, then from what I can see I would be pretty impressed with the craftsmanship that has gone into to making it alone.
So where does that leave the closet digital artists? I suspect in fear of not really being good enough to do anything near what the real digital artists are doing. Tough place to be with one foot in one camp and another in the old camp and not being sure which you are in.

Jim collum

5-Nov-2009, 10:26

When that image was made people wouldn't have questioned how it was made. They might even have applauded the craftsmanship. Today they will think, well so what? Any kid can do that with photoshop. In terms of what people can do today it just doesn't stand up. Digital art has gone way past that. So where and how should I be judging it. If its by todays standards then so what about it? If it's by pre digital editing standards, then from what I can see I would be pretty impressed with the craftsmanship that has gone into to making it alone.
So where does that leave the closet digital artists? I suspect in fear of not really being good enough to do anything near what the real digital artists are doing. Tough place to be with one foot in one camp and another in the old camp and not being sure which you are in.

so what makes up a 'closet digital artist' . Where do you draw your line?

rdenney

5-Nov-2009, 10:33

I think that the hard case arises when the techniques of photography and the techniques of plastic art are combined to produce a single image.

When we discuss concrete examples, it becomes much easier to test theories to see if they work.

Struan has presented several examples that are illuminating. (And, by the way, I wasn't making the case that I thought photograms necessarily weren't photographs, I was pointing out that if a distinction was needed, it was easy to articulate one.)

I created a presentation for a crowd of collectors of GMC Motorhomes, and I needed some artwork to pretty it up. My own GMC is no piece of art--the early 70's paint job isn't even all one color let alone shiny--so I thought I would give it a little Photoshop transformation. Also, I needed it to be pastel so I could lay text on top of it without undermining legibility. This is, to me, a clear case of combining a photograph with the plastic arts, to use your terms. In hopes that I am not violating protocol, I have attached the image below. This is, of course, a goofy example, and precisely fits with Struan's complaint that the power is often used to achieve less, not more. But I needed a piece of utilitarian art that met specific requirements, including ease of creation, and this fulfilled those requirements.

But I would never in my wildest dreams call it a photograph, nor do I think would the man on the street. If I had to describe it, I would call it a computer-aided manipulation of a photograph. The reason is that many of the lines and shapes on the artwork were not created by projecting light onto a sensitized surface. They were created by overlaying a non-photographic pattern on top of a photograph and mixing the two. Desaturating the color by itself would not have undermined it as a photograph, but all those colored-chalk effects clearly do.

So, my own proposal, which is to distinguish the elements of the art that are photographic from those that are not as a means of identifying what manipulations undermine the use of the word and what manipulations don't, seems to work.

By the way, I could have produced this same artwork by projecting my photograph (let's say I used an enlarger to project a transparency--we don't need no steenking digital here!) and then colored the image using colored chalks. I actually think I have the skill to have done it that way. But it was much more convenient to do it using Photoshop. This distinction does not hinge on the digital vs. analog boundary.

Jerry Ulsemann's work is a montage, but it's a montage of purely photographic elements. That's the difference between it and something like this.

To me, this isn't involved with the definition or value as art, but rather a discussion of taxonomy. The integrity is when people are clear about what they did and why (which is what I take from Kirk's exhortation to own the methods used and make no apology for them).

Rick "thinking this example similar to the Obama poster, but less likely to divert the conversation" Denney

percepts

5-Nov-2009, 10:57

so what makes up a 'closet digital artist' . Where do you draw your line?
I thought I had quite clearly said. Where the original capture has been so fundamentally altered by non photographic processes that it ceases to be a photograph. i.e. What I am looking at is not a result of a photographic capture/printing process but rather the result of non photographic raster, digital or other image editing process which deviated significantly from the original capture.

Jim collum

5-Nov-2009, 11:06

I thought I had quite clearly said. Where the original capture has been so fundamentally altered by non photographic processes that it ceases to be a photograph. i.e. What I am looking at is not a result of a photographic capture/printing process but rather the result of non photographic raster, digital or other image editing process which deviated significantly from the original capture.

ok. so a digital capture, traditional manipulation, output to inkjet (or whatever else you can get it onto.. negative, etc).. That qualifies as photography?

percepts

5-Nov-2009, 11:14

ok. so a digital capture, traditional manipulation, output to inkjet (or whatever else you can get it onto.. negative, etc).. That qualifies as photography?

Yup, but I wasn't ever making that point. The point I was making is that siginficant changes are being made which are being attributed as photography and IMO that lacks photography integrity.

rdenney

5-Nov-2009, 11:18

When that image was made people wouldn't have questioned how it was made. They might even have applauded the craftsmanship. Today they will think, well so what? Any kid can do that with photoshop.

Which kid would that be? I keep asking for examples from you.

One often hears that statement in galleries and museums: "What's the big deal? I could do that". The answer to such people is, of course, "but you didn't." An artist like Mondrian is an example. That is art that requires very little in terms of craft or technique, and lots in terms of vision and idea.

So, the take-away for me is this: Never judge art on the basis of the difficulty of the technique. Judge it on the resulting impact on the viewer.

That doesn't mean that we, as practitioners of the same craft, don't admire technique.

Alternate-universe example: I'm a tuba player. The tuba is a contrabass instrument that is not what one would normally think well-suited for playing solos. And so it has been--what little solo literature there is for it tends to either play to stereotypes or present profound technical challenges beyond the skill of nearly all performers to present musically. Tuba players listen to attempts at such works, even those by our leading lights, and admire the supreme technical prowess required to achieve mere adequacy. An example is Oystein Baadsvik, who is probably the foremost tuba soloist in the world right now. His show piece is Vivaldi's Four Seasons. Tuba players, upon listening to him perform this violin work, usually want to go sell there tubas and think of another way to spend their time. Slack-jawed awe describes my response well enough. But, to any non-tuba-player, musician or not, your average professional violin soloist still blows Mr. Baadsvik's rendition out of the water in terms of musical expression. We admire the skill as skill, but we have to admit that skill is not what drives art. Idea and vision drive art. Lack of skill can certainly undermine expression, of course, but that's not the same thing.

Ulseman had to work harder in terms of craft to achieve his creations than would a modern Photoshop artist, perhaps, but the fact remains that he is the one who did it. If Photoshop is more powerful, then we should see more powerful art that takes advantage of the better tools. Just as we would reject any violinist who could do no better with Vivaldi than the most capable tuba player in the world. What we are seeing with Photoshop--at present--mostly demonstrates that vision and idea are still the mostly likely constraints.

One of the problems with large-format photography (or, separately, film photography) is that it is tempting to revere technique over art. We hope that the difficulties of technique imbue some artistic quality to the work, but we have to admit that it is not always so. My own work proves that clearly enough.

Rick "thinking there is enough to chew on with this topic without bringing integrity into the mix" Denney

Ben Syverson

5-Nov-2009, 11:20

I thought I had quite clearly said. Where the original capture has been so fundamentally altered by non photographic processes that it ceases to be a photograph.
Percepts, you have a classic "boundary" problem here. Who draws that line between "Photograph" and "Photoshop," and how? The answer is so subjective as to be worthless for discussion, except as a flimsy pretext for a debate.

Unfortunately for you, you're about 100 years late to that debate, and just about everyone else is completely bored with it.

tgtaylor

5-Nov-2009, 11:25

In fact, there is no difference at all in the way that light 'draws' on sensitised silver halide crystals and the sensor wells on an imaging chip. We use the same mathematics to describe both, and it is no surprise (to me at least) that the first widely accepted quantum mechanical description of the light absorbtion process in photographic emulsions was developed by Neville Mott, who won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to solid state physics.

The distinction you make (and Greg, in a more entertainingly ramblecrappy way) is based on romantic imagination, not science. The difference between the way emulsions and chips make images lies not in how the light is captured, but in how the excited charges are read out: in the one case chemically, in the other electrically. We evil scientists are busy blurring the distinction there too, for example by making solar cells which generate electrical current using the methods of photographic emulsions, and for many practical purposes there is now no difference between chemistry and physics. Even before that, technicians worked on emulsion chemistry to tune image characteristics just as intensively as they now work on algorithms for noise reduction or image compression. The only difference is that they don't *need* to wear white coats any more.

The appeal to science to resolve an aesthetic dispute is not new. Neither is the fact that the appeal misunderstands the very science it advances as evidence. What is interesting about these photographic debates - as compared for example to the garbage spouted by artists about relativity or fractal geometry - is where the attention is focussed: the light capture. To me, that says something deep about what people feel they are doing when they make a photograph. The indexality of the photographic process seems key to the emotions as well as the intellect.

I'm not going to try to 'correct your seeing' which tends to the algorithmic and mechanical, but would like to point out one glaring error in the above. Light is not “captured” by either the emulsion or pixel. There is no piece of light entrapped in the emulsion or silicon chip trying to get out. In the case of the former the incoming wave (or particle if you prefer to see it that way) of light literally draws the scene on the paper, glass, or celluloid negative in a manner that is not understood to this day by rearranging the distribution of the sensitized salts. When you hold up the negative - which, by the way, was at the scene at the moment of creation - to the light to examine it, the traces upon it that you see were placed there by light alone (Talbot’s poetic Pencil of Nature) and not by a computer algorithm.

r_a_feldman

5-Nov-2009, 11:42

I'm not going to try to 'correct your seeing' which tends to the algorithmic and mechanical, but would like to point out one glaring error in the above. Light is not “captured” by either the emulsion or pixel. There is no piece of light entrapped in the emulsion or silicon chip trying to get out. In the case of the former the incoming wave (or particle if you prefer to see it that way) of light literally draws the scene on the paper, glass, or celluloid negative in a manner that is not understood to this day by rearranging the distribution of the sensitized salts. When you hold up the negative - which, by the way, was at the scene at the moment of creation - to the light to examine it, the traces upon it that you see were placed there by light alone (Talbot’s poetic Pencil of Nature) and not by a computer algorithm.

I think your distinction is not really meaningful. The sensors in digital cameras are designed to be reusable. It is entirely possible to design a single-use digital sensor that is physically altered by light, in a way similar to what happens to silver-halide film. The image would be integral to the sensor, but would be digitally readable and could be post-processed.

Further, the image on a negative was not "placed there by light alone." The developer chemicals reacted with the light-affected silver halide to product the metalic silver in the negative. Different developers and development times will affect the image we see.

Bob

jnantz

5-Nov-2009, 12:08

I thought I had quite clearly said. Where the original capture has been so fundamentally altered by non photographic processes that it ceases to be a photograph. i.e. What I am looking at is not a result of a photographic capture/printing process but rather the result of non photographic raster, digital or other image editing process which deviated significantly from the original capture.

does scraping the emulsion off of the film count as a non photographic process ?
there are many ways to manipulate an image ...

r.e.

5-Nov-2009, 12:16

does scraping the emulsion off of the film count as a non photographic process ?
there are many ways to manipulate an image ...

Now who would do something like that, other than a miscreant like John Deakin and his buddy Francis...

http://www.askyfilledwithshootingstars.com/wordpress/?p=971 (portrait of George Dyer, a little more than half-way down the page)

Or were you referring to mundane stuff like lifts :)

Robert Hughes

5-Nov-2009, 12:27

Of the 19th Century photographer Leon Robert DEMACHY (http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/demachy.htm):

"In addition to deliberately using soft focus lenses to blur and soften the image, he also used printing processes which required manipulation. The final result was by no means pure photography, because the finished result in many of his pictures was achieved by using brushwork together with photography. "

Interestingly, Demachy was the person who coined the phrase, "the end justifies the means."

Kirk Gittings

5-Nov-2009, 12:30

Originally Posted by percepts View Post
When that image was made people wouldn't have questioned how it was made. They might even have applauded the craftsmanship. Today they will think, well so what? Any kid can do that with photoshop.

I regularly judge a citywide high school photo contest here. It rare to see manipulated work that is truly accomplished, but that was equally true when everything was analogue too.

Actually very few kids have the skill or vision to pull off anything collaged or manipulated that is vaguely believable and/or aesthetically accomplished, (though when I see it I am thrilled). It is certainly not easy or common.

Struan Gray

5-Nov-2009, 12:30

Struan Gray

5-Nov-2009, 12:40

I think your distinction is not really meaningful. The sensors in digital cameras are designed to be reusable. It is entirely possible to design a single-use digital sensor that is physically altered by light, in a way similar to what happens to silver-halide film. The image would be integral to the sensor, but would be digitally readable and could be post-processed.

In the death throes of commercial analogue photography, Kodak actually tried to promote a physical way of reading film by using electron spin resonance spectrocopy to measure the density of development centres in the exposed emulsion. It worked, but was a solution in search of a problem.

Non-silver based re-usable 'emulsions' with a physical readout are used in medical imaging and other x-ray applications:

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/life_science_systems/science_imaging/imaging_plate/whatis/

I'm not sure if Europium valancy states have integrity or not...

jnantz

5-Nov-2009, 13:33

Now who would do something like that, other than a miscreant like John Deakin and his buddy Francis...

http://www.askyfilledwithshootingstars.com/wordpress/?p=971 (portrait of George Dyer, a little more than half-way down the page)

Or were you referring to mundane stuff like lifts :)

hi r.e. -

oh, i was referring to me ;)
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=443031&postcount=34
and yes, over the years i have been told that my images were not photographs
(even by people who i "audienced" with at galleries in boston in the pre-digital days)

it is always interesting to see how "photography" or "the way of making a photographic image" is accepted by some
and rejected by others.

- john

BrianShaw

5-Nov-2009, 13:37

Interestingly, Demachy was the person who coined the phrase, "the end justifies the means."

I love Demachy's work. He's a wizard of visual imagery. Didn't he mostly print Gum Bichromate? Fabulous stuff... reminds me of Fresson, collotype, lithograph and the other printing processes that are used creatively to interpret photographic images.

But are you sure that Demachy said that... I though Machiavelli did.

EDIT. Many thanks to "he who reminded me" that Sophocles actually said that first... not those exact words, but the same notion.

r.e.

5-Nov-2009, 13:51

hi r.e. -

oh, i was referring to me ;)
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=443031&postcount=34
and yes, over the years i have been told that my images were not photographs
(even by people who i "audienced" with at galleries in boston in the pre-digital days)

I would love to see those photographs in person.

r.e.

5-Nov-2009, 13:57

Many thanks to "he who reminded me" that Sophocles actually said that first... not those exact words, but the same notion.

Isn't the idea implicit in The Republic?

BrianShaw

5-Nov-2009, 13:59

Not sure which writing of Sophocles. Maybe Elektra?

It is implicit in Machiavelli's "The Prince", but it appears that he never said those exact words... no matter how much people credit him

BrianShaw

5-Nov-2009, 14:08

Maybe Plato said it also... but I think he read Sophocles before writing The Republic. ;)

Kirk Gittings

5-Nov-2009, 14:56

Back on the question of integrity, do "found" subjects have more integrity than "constructed" photographs. Remember the hot topic of the 80's "Constructed to be Photographed". Does a formal staged portrait have less integrity than the same subject caught off guard on the street? And back to the Walker Evans thread, if I move objects in an interior does this have less integrity than "as found". Here is an example from my own work. I was visiting the now famous SF Railroad Yards in Albuquerque and came across this scene which I had photographed many times but now with a podium and police tape. I was thrilled as it lent an air of mystery to an already desolate interior. As I went to grab my camera and set up, my assistant Jim Hunter, without instructions from me, went to do what he always does-straighten up an interior, removing the tape and starting to remove the podium. When I saw him I freaked and said to put it back and this is the result.

http://sitemanager.sitewelder.com/users/KirkGittings2359/images/KirkGittings2359674337.jpg
4x5 Acros 100 in XTOL scanned with an Imacon.

Many people have asked me about the podium. Did I put it there etc. Later I found out that we were there on the heals of a talk given by a preservationist from the Wheels Museum trying to raise money from potential doners for the project. But does it really matter whether I constructed the scene or found it? My interpretation of the scene makes it as much my creation as if I had constructed it.

Does my interpretation of the scene make it as much my creation as if I had constructed it?

BrianShaw

5-Nov-2009, 15:09

Sorry for the diversion Kirk... but man does not live by photography alone. To address your question, please allow me time to reflect upon my only Barbara Kasten photograph... of mirrors and other oddly arranged stuff. I always thought it was a photograph, and one with photographic integrity but now I'm wondering if I know for sure. Maybe I really missed out by not going to art school... I appear to be too much of a "simpleton" in this area of deep thinking.

Kirk Gittings

5-Nov-2009, 15:14

r.e.

5-Nov-2009, 15:17

Kirk, I don't quite understand. As I am sure you know, the issues that you are now raising have nothing to do with what has been discussed in this thread.

Anyway, I'll play along.

Who claims that a pphotograph of a found subject has more integrity than a photograph of a constructed subject, and in what sense, if such a claim has been made, is the word integrity being used?

I do a lot of street photography, and I have spent quite a lot of time looking at street photographs and reading about them. I have never heard anyone say that street/documentary photographs have more integrity than constructed photographs. Perhaps you could point me to a street photographer, or at least a critic, who has made this claim. This is lunatic fringe stuff.

The issue of the Farm Security Administration photographers, including Walker Evans, is specific to the way that their work was being sold to the public and their complicity, or absence of complicity, in how it was being sold. This is a question of photo-journalistic integrity, if one accepts that that is what they were allegedly doing, and as a question of photo-journalistic integrity it is not complicated. It is pretty cut and dried. If somebody wants to say that Dorthea Lange's decision to stage-manage one of the FSA's most iconic photographs was hunkydorry, fine, but really, it was blatantly wrong to tell people that that photograph was a documentary photograph, and wrong on her part, if she was complicit, to go along.

One observation that I'd like to make is that your post mixes two different meanings of the word integrity, without distinguishing between them.

Kirk Gittings

5-Nov-2009, 15:34

Here's my train of thought and where I wanted to go.

How different is digital manipulation of a file and printing it fundamentally different than the manipulation of a scene and photographing that. In both cases what is presented has been constructed by the artist. People ask me if I put the podium there because it seems incongruous just like people have asked me in another photograph whether I put a graffiti face on a wall via Photoshop. Both of these were photographed before I even owned Photoshop and both were shot on film. We (at least I have) have always faced this question of integrity of the image. I don't see that anything has changed as a result of digital. The answer to the question though IME is simply always the truth about the particular image and the truth about the plastic nature of photography as a medium. Those who present any photographs as a record, either don't understand the innate interpretation inherent in the medium or choose to deny it. IE all photographs are constructions and should not be trusted as fact or truth regardless of the capture medium. No photographs have the integrity that some are proposing here.

I was recently the foreman on a jury where a key piece of testimony was dependent on a seemingly very straightforward photograph presented by the defense. The only problem was that the photograph was made with a wide angle lens which exaggerated the distances. This distance impacted on whether a witness could really see what he said he saw. If you believed the photograph you would not believe he could easly see what he claimed, but in reality he was much closer to the event than the photograph implied, like the difference between 20 feet and 40 feet. The mere use of a moderate wideangle lens made the image invalid as a accurate document. IMO understanding the nature of photography a photograph has little more integrity as a representation of reality than a painting.

rdenney

5-Nov-2009, 16:18

The mere use of a moderate wideangle lens made the image invalid as a accurate document. IMO understanding the nature of photography a photograph has little more integrity as a representation of reality than a painting.

What makes a photograph accurate in that sense is the evidence that corroborates it. I'm sure the other side in your case took much advantage of their ability to undermine the photo as evidence.

And your story presents a basic engineering principle that distinguishes between accuracy and precision. We think photographs are accurate because they precise--their precision being an outgrowth of their indexical nature (to the extent that the lens is focus, of course). The implied truth of the photo that has been described in this and other threads as a fundamental expectation depends on something that is false: Precision does not guarantee truth.

In engineering, precision describes how finely a measurement can be made. If I have a 270-degree dial, then I can read to 2% of that dial if the scale is properly marked, for example. So, if the dial is covering, say, temperature ranging from 1 to 100 C, then the precision of that dial is +/- 2 degrees C. But what if the thermometer is out of calibration, so that the temperature it reads is off by 10 degrees? That's the measure of accuracy. Engineers are trained to never report measurements beyond the accuracy of the measuring system, even if that system makes possible greater precision.

So, truth is based on accuracy, not precision. But photographs are inherently precise, but not necessarily accurate, as your example illustrates.

When I see the word "honesty" used in reference to photos, it usually means the photo is a portrait of somebody who is not pretending to be happy. (I find it easy to believe that many of those "honest" portraits are of people pretending to be unhappy, but that's another debate.) They are presented in their natural element, "warts and all" to use a phrase from my art classes. People believe such subjects are portrayed honestly only because those subjects meet their expectations of how such subjects should look. Without taking the steps to verify that independently, they are believing that precision means accuracy.

It is said that photographs have the veneer of truth, but in fact I don't even think they have a veneer. The truth of a photograph is orthogonal to how it looks, just as precision is orthogonal to accuracy.

Rick "engineering as philosophy? who knew?" Denney

r.e.

5-Nov-2009, 16:42

IMO understanding the nature of photography a photograph has little more integrity as a representation of reality than a painting.

In other words, a photograph doesn't represent reality.

Agreed, with a caveat. I suspect that my caveat may invite sniggers if not derision, but so be it. Serious jounalists don't claim that their stories are fully objective accounts of reality, but objectivity is their goal, and it is important that they make the attempt. The same is true, or should be true, of photojournalists. I like to believe that the writers and photographers who are reporting from Afghanistan on what is happening with the Canadian troops there feel an obligation to tell their fellow Canadians back home what is really going on, and that they are trying very hard to fulfill that obligation. I would prefer that they not work on the premise that writing and photography are inherently subjective so they should just communicate whatever the hell they feel like.

Accepting your proposition, with that caveat, I'm not sure what follows from it. Did someone in this thread claim that a photograph, to be a photograph, must represent reality? If someone did, explicitly or implicitly, I'm kind of surprised, and I can only say that that person and I will have to agree to disagree. There isn't much chance of common ground.

I have this feeling that I may be missing what you are saying. If so, maybe you could set me straight.

Brian Ellis

5-Nov-2009, 17:55

When that image was made people wouldn't have questioned how it was made. They might even have applauded the craftsmanship. Today they will think, well so what? Any kid can do that with photoshop. In terms of what people can do today it just doesn't stand up. Digital art has gone way past that. So where and how should I be judging it. If its by todays standards then so what about it? If it's by pre digital editing standards, then from what I can see I would be pretty impressed with the craftsmanship that has gone into to making it alone.
So where does that leave the closet digital artists? I suspect in fear of not really being good enough to do anything near what the real digital artists are doing. Tough place to be with one foot in one camp and another in the old camp and not being sure which you are in.

Here's a radical idea. You could judge it as an image without worrying about how it was made.

And any kid with Photoshop couldn't create that image. Any kid with Photoshop could copy it. But it took Jerry Uelsman to create the image.

Brian Ellis

5-Nov-2009, 18:00

I thought I had quite clearly said. Where the original capture has been so fundamentally altered by non photographic processes that it ceases to be a photograph. i.e. What I am looking at is not a result of a photographic capture/printing process but rather the result of non photographic raster, digital or other image editing process which deviated significantly from the original capture.

Ah - now it's o.k. to fundamentally alter the original capture as long as it's done by a "photographic process." And let me guess - alteration in a darkroom is a photographic process, Photoshop isn't.

Was it the Mad Hatter who said something like "words mean exactly what I want them to mean?"

percepts

5-Nov-2009, 18:09

I'm sorry the question was beyond your comprehension. That's out of my control.

BetterSense

5-Nov-2009, 18:57

The fundamental difference between digital and photography is that one is photographic, and one is digital. All other differences are superficial and subjective.

I don't think differences in issues of difficulty, ease of manipulation, extent of manipulation, etc between them are worth worrying about. You might as well argue over whether jazz is better than metal. And I even less do I care to ponder questions of which is better.

I think that people that use a medium, should state that medium, if they wish, or if they wish to not state the medium, then I feel that it's their prerogative to do that too. What isn't ok or ethical to do is to lie or mislead regarding the medium that you did use. Selling something a "marble statue" that turns out to really be resin tarnishes the reputation of all artists. Most people have no trouble understanding this.

I feel that discussions over what to call things are legitimate based on this consideration. But that's only a argument over language, and what to call things. The fact of the matter is that "photography" meant one thing in 1990, and now only two decades later it apparently means a rather different thing, which includes what I would argue are fundamentally different media. I think trying to sort what to call things is inevitable in this environment and should be encouraged.

As has been pointed out, the label "photography" has been applied to everything. They should have distinguished digital imaging from photography but they didn't except maybe in the scientific world. It's too late to change this and just pisses people off to suggest that they are lying about their medium by calling it photography. When being more specific (as to "types of photography") calling digital "digital art" rather than photography is great, but what to call optical photography, then? You can't just claim that it should be called "photography" (despite the long history), because the word colloquially belongs to both. Traditional practitioners have no choice but to give ground here; the meaning of the word has changed to include more than their medium only. I think we should agree that the word "photography" belongs to both media, and to distinguish them should call one "digital art" and the other "traditional photography" or "chemical photography" or "film photography"...a better word would be good.

Combinations of them can simply be called "hybrid photography" as is the convention anyway on the internet. And as long as people label their output honestly--inkjet print, silver print, cyanotype, lightjet print--we should all be able to get along.

Again I think it's natural that there is tension over what to call things and this actually an honorable thing to discuss until it's all ironed out. The photographic landscape has changed a great deal over the past decades and terminology is bound to change along with it.

Richard M. Coda

5-Nov-2009, 19:14

I haven't had the time to read this entire thread but I think that integrity, in general, is an endangered species. As such, photography, and virtually just about everything else will be affected by it.

Jim collum

5-Nov-2009, 19:34

I think we should agree that the word "photography" belongs to both media, and to distinguish them should call one "digital art" and the other "traditional photography" or "chemical photography" or "film photography"...a better word would be good.

Combinations of them can simply be called "hybrid photography" as is the convention anyway on the internet. And as long as people label their output honestly--inkjet print, silver print, cyanotype, lightjet print--we should all be able to get along.

Again I think it's natural that there is tension over what to call things and this actually an honorable thing to discuss until it's all ironed out. The photographic landscape has changed a great deal over the past decades and terminology is bound to change along with it.

why should it be 'digital art', and not 'digital photography'. I'm a photographer. whether I use analog or digital capture is irrelevant. Whether I print using silver gelatin, dye transfer, hand coated platinum, or inkjet.... what I have as an end result is a photographic print.

as far as ironing it out... the matter already is settled. This is a non-issue for everyone except an incredibly small percentage of people writing in online forums. The customer base, museum curators, gallery owners, buying public don't even know there *is* an issue here.

paulr

5-Nov-2009, 20:26

Back on the question of integrity, do "found" subjects have more integrity than "constructed" photographs.

I tend to think that photographers and writers and editors can have integrity (or not), but that pictures and words just are what they are.

Did you stage a photograph and then claim you found the subject? Then you're demonstrating a lack of integrity. The image itself? It neither has integrity nor lacks it.

This may be a way of dismissing the original question outright.

I think integrity in photography is an important subject, but attempts to link integrity to a particular process are fundamentally foolish.

archer

6-Nov-2009, 01:16

Since the earliest days of sculpture, in marble, many artists would, with wax, hide cracks and breaks among other flaws. To prove the integrity and the flawlessness of the sculpture, an unwritten law amongst sculptors was that the word "Sincere" must appear on the sculpture. Sincere in latin means, "without wax", thus the purchaser had proof that his statue was flawless and worth the price of purchase. Is it now time for all analog photography to be stamped, "Sincedigitalium"?
Denise Libby

Struan Gray

6-Nov-2009, 02:54

There is a charm to the un-posed photograph that evaporates to leave a nasty taste when you discover that the scene it depicts was constructed for the sole purpose of making a photograph. The sense of discovery is important to the viewer, even if vicarious. Catching a glimpse of a celebrity in the mall gives a thrill that is absent when downloading press kits from their website.

These photographs for example would lose their interest if the signposts were written just to make a weak joke in a photograph:

http://www.katepeters.co.uk/#/projects/safetyfirst

But they would also lose their sense of orientalist superiority, the tourist snigger at the quaintly unsophisticated other. So constructing such signposts, and letting people know you did so, would be one way making viewers examine their attitudes explicitly, and perhaps remind them that the signwriters and the road authority are themselves well aware of the rube-ish ridiculousness of the slogans. Such a project would be no less photographic than Kate Peters' documentation of genuine roadsigns, but it would have a different purpose, and different criteria for any judgement of integrity or success.

The seventies seems to have been an age for reminding people that photographs can lie. I like a lot of Duane Micheals' work, but the general concept gets tired quickly. The present constructed photograph craze feels much more derivative of Hollywood film narratives and cinematography - there is less needling of the viewer, and the story presented seems once again to be more important than the mere fact of it being a story.

Jeff Wall and others who construct more-or-less easily read narratives tend to get the most photographic press, but there is another class of photographers who produce constructed images, and who are more to my taste. I am thinking of those who treat art as a behaviour, or a pattern of activity, and who use photography to document their art for a wider audience. Richard Long and Andy Goldsworthy are canonical examples from my side of the Atalantic, but there are many more. From a photographer's perspective, in the best examples it becomes unclear whether the photograph or the activity are more important - there is a symbiosis between the artist and the art which is impossible to untangle, in a way that is reminiscent of street photography. Here's a recent one on me.

http://www.alejandralaviada.com/#a=0&at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=0

As far as I can see, these are not just sculptures, but sculptures constructed to look their best in photographs. As such, they undermine the traditional distinction of sculpture as dimensional, while simultaneously poking a bit of fun at all those photos of abandoned warehouses and mental asylums (no offence Kirk :-).

rdenney

6-Nov-2009, 07:06

Is it now time for all analog photography to be stamped, "Sincedigitalium"?

Denise, how do you equate the involvement of digital processes with the wax in a sculpture?

I like the idea though--it puts the burden of further qualification of the word photography on the traditional-methods faithful. But instead of saying what it isn't, say what it is. Isn't that what is being requested here? They could call their work a "enlarger-printed film-based photograph", sorta like "line-caught salmon." After all, if the public is crying for the integrity of traditional methods, this should have a good marketing effect.

Rick "wondering if those who sell line-caught salmon have tried to declare that farm-raised salmon are actually not salmon at all" Denney

rdenney

6-Nov-2009, 07:43

...Here's a recent one on me.

http://www.alejandralaviada.com/#a=0&at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=0

As far as I can see, these are not just sculptures, but sculptures constructed to look their best in photographs. As such, they undermine the traditional distinction of sculpture as dimensional, while simultaneously poking a bit of fun at all those photos of abandoned warehouses and mental asylums (no offence Kirk :-).

Struan, your post should be put up as an example of superb photographic criticism--it expands horizons rather than judging them, while still providing useful critique. You've brought to the discussion the work of several photographers I'd never heard of or seen and can now appreciate.

I looked on those photographs as still lifes. Aren't still lifes exactly the same sorts of constructs? They are also found objects, arranged in a way that expresses something about form for form's sake, and maybe something a little beyond that. I'm not sure these are fundamentally different from Adams's Boards and Thistles or a 400-year-old Dutch painting of a candlestick, an apple, and a pear sitting on a table.

In terms of your first point, it seems to me that what is said by the artist is important. Even a painter, who presents a work as a statement of objective fact (and not just a subjective expression of perspective) will be called to task if it turns out the facts are deceptively portrayed. The difference is that some believe that photography makes that claim merely by virtue of being a photograph, and to my thinking that is a naive point of view. But photographs used where their factual veracity is important, including (but not always limited to) the work of photojournalists and forensic photographers, have credibility as truth only for two reasons: 1.) The photographer claims it, and has proven to be trustworthy either on the basis of reputation or by virtue of the documented process for ensuring that veracity, or 2.) the story told by the photograph is independently and persuasively verified.

This speaks to a deeper divide in photography, from my amateur standpoint, that has always been there and is unaffected by the digital debate. That divide separates those who revere the celebrity of the subject over how it is presented, or those who believe that art does not derive solely from the celebrity of the subject. Only in the former is there any implication of objective fact, as demonstrated by your story of candid photos of a celebrity in the mall versus the photo in their press pack. That was the basis for the conflict between Beaumont Newhall and Edward Steichen. And it is the same debate that separates fine-artist painters from mere (sarcasm mine) illustrators such as Norman Rockwell. Before that, it separated authors of "pure" fiction from those who wrote allegory, with stoutly expressed claims of not being one or the other by the combatants whose works don't seem either to modern readers. And the divide between authors of "literature" versus "reporters". It hinges on whether art is merely illustrative and has no lasting value as art versus art made for art's sake that does not depend on topicality for artistic relevance. Of course, separating the two is necessarily the work of historians, because it's difficult to tell what is relevant for its topicality only in the present. Even Adams's work could be presented as a documentation of the natural scene as it existed in the middle of the 20th Century, just as it objectively was for Timothy O'Sullivan.

But I don't see how this divide separates the photograph from the non-photograph, only the art from the non-art. And it seems to me that the second is even more difficult to resolve than the first.

Rick "noting that nobody assumes writing is non-fiction unless it is claimed as such" Denney

Donald Miller

6-Nov-2009, 10:03

I have come to realize that some discussions will not end until much later. This discussion of what is and is not photography and the digital/film discussion fits into that camp.

I have been using large format for more years than I want to remember. I have been down the well traveled road of producing perfectly exposed, well composed, well printed photographs and have come to believe that the very thing that we discuss ad infinitum here is the thing that prevents me and others like me from being truly creative. I personally believe that documentarians are necessary...they should photograph for police labs, newspapers, and National Geographic...because they are not truly creative and for that reason I would not classify them as artists.

These no-grain, sharp, well exposed and printed photographs should in many cases find their way to the circular file of an aspiring artist because they amount to nothing more than a documentarian's feeble and ultimately failed attempt at capturing "reality" in a manner that is "real and possessing of integrity".

This endless boring discussion amounts to nothing more or less than arguing about the color of the fire engine that comes to extinguish the fire in our home without ever considering what caused the fire, what the fire (of itself) looks like, or what it may represent in a symbolic realm.

Cameras whether they are digital or film are only a means to an end. Resolution charts do not move me...in fact they bore the living sh** out of me. Still more and more boringly "perfect" photographs or rocks, trees, and old buildings will not get my juices flowing. Show me something that is grainy, fuzzy, compositionally imperfect and pose something to me that evidences that you have done something that has not been done before and I will sit up and take notice. I could care less what you use for a tool show me what you can do with that tool.

Donald Miller

percepts

6-Nov-2009, 10:08

These no-grain, sharp, well exposed and printed photographs should in many cases find their way to the circular file of an aspiring artist because they amount to nothing more than a documentarian's feeble and ultimately failed attempt at capturing "reality" in a manner that is "real and possessing of integrity".
Donald Miller

So you've just dismissed the entire lifes work of Cartier Bresson then...

paulr

6-Nov-2009, 10:19

So you've just dismissed the entire lifes work of Cartier Bresson then...

And Weston, O'Sullivan, Walker Evans ...

I think this a confusion of the tool (in this case an esthetic tool ... the "straight" photographic esthetic) with the work produced by it.

Yeah, you can easly make boring, shallow work using the straight photographers tools--just as you can with any others.

paulr

6-Nov-2009, 10:35

These photographs for example would lose their interest if the signposts were written just to make a weak joke in a photograph...

But they would also lose their sense of orientalist superiority, the tourist snigger at the quaintly unsophisticated other. So constructing such signposts, and letting people know you did so, would be one way making viewers examine their attitudes explicitly...

You're demonstrating how our reactions to photographs are profoundly influenced by our expectations ... and how these expectations are generally created by the context in which the image is shown.

On these message boards, I see an oft-repeated belief that "the image should stand on its own." Usually this is a dismissal of the need for any kind of artist's statement, criticism, text of any kind, or even of the need for an image to belong to a larger body of work.

I've always felt that this belief was naive; that it only holds up in a context that's so familiar that you're not even aware of it as a context anymore. For example, if you're in a room full of formal modernist American landscape pictures of the type you look at often ... you know the genre, you know the language, you know what you need in order to understand the pictures.

Likewise with pictures that have all the overt trappings of "news" photographs or "documentary" photographs. Things begin to seem dishonest when a photograph is presented (contextualized) as something it's not: like a picture accompanying a news story in a newspaper, when we learn it has been composited.

This picture on a gallery wall alongside Gursky's pictures raises no ire; in the newspaper we see it as a lie.

percepts

6-Nov-2009, 10:37

I tend to think that photographers and writers and editors can have integrity (or not), but that pictures and words just are what they are.

Did you stage a photograph and then claim you found the subject? Then you're demonstrating a lack of integrity. The image itself? It neither has integrity nor lacks it.

This may be a way of dismissing the original question outright.

I think integrity in photography is an important subject, but attempts to link integrity to a particular process are fundamentally foolish.

Here's an anology.
Lets take the case of an athlete. A world class athlete. One by the name of Marion Jones. Now suppose that athlete gets caught taking steroids. From her point of view she's just trying to improve her performance because she wants to be the best. But from the point of view of eveyone else, she has no integrity because she has broken the rules and further more she's broken the integrity of the sport of athletics by bringing it into disrepute. The sport can have integrity and the individual can have integrity. If no one in the sport has integrity then the sport as a whole can never have integrity. It becomes meaningless because there are no boundaries which people can relate to and therefore being a winner will lose all status. The sport requires integrity to sustain itself. The individual must operate within the boundaries.

But photography has no rules or boundaries according to many here. Anything goes. Where are the boundaries? how can photography have integrity if there are no boundaries. It is upto each of us as individuals to maintain the standards by which photography is practiced and within recognised boundaries. If we don't recognise boundaries then we are like the athlete on drugs. We break the integrity of the very thing that we do. We falsify our work as it becomes meaningless.
Digital has apparently removed those boundaries but has not set new boundaries and therefore it has removed the integrity from photography. Perhaps this is why photography has always been such a minor art form. It refuses to be defined in such a way that people can relate to it knowingly. It is always suspect of being tampered with. That is why if you have digitally altered an image you should say so. That way you validate what the boundaries are that you have been working within. You give your work some integrity. Being a smart arse and calling yourself "fine art photographer" when you have photoshopped the hell out of an image makes it worthless unless you are dealing with the clueless. But yours and photography's integrity has just disappeared in a puff of nothingness.

paulr

6-Nov-2009, 10:46

But photography has no rules or boundaries according to many here. Anything goes. Where are the boundaries? how can photography have integrity if there are no boundaries.

I don't think that's quite it. My previous post about context addresses this.

It's not quite true that there are no rules ... more like there are many sets of rules. Trouble brews when you suggest adherence to a set of rules and then violate them. Like the example above: a composited image is fine in some contexts, but not when presented as a news picture.

Back to athletes... there are bodybuilding leagues where steroids are ok. There are also leagues where they're not. There's no lack of integrity in a bodybuilder injecting plutonium directly into his nuts in the anything-goes league ... but if he then lies in order to get into the clean league ... well, you get the idea.

Here also, integrity is in the man and his words, not in the technical process.

Kirk Gittings

6-Nov-2009, 10:55

Digital has apparently removed those boundaries

And this is my point. The boundaries you say digital removed were already gone in traditional.

percepts

6-Nov-2009, 11:02

And this is my point. The boundaries you say digital removed were already gone in traditional.

I think we will have to disagree on that and agree that there can never be any integrity in photography which is a pity. Well we can all inject some integrity by stating the boundaries which we work within. Failure to do that and there can be none.

Ben Syverson

6-Nov-2009, 11:06

Well we can all inject some integrity by stating the boundaries which we work within. Failure to do that and there can be none.
What's so magical about personal boundaries? Am I supposed to respect the photographer who makes direct contact prints more than the photographer who scans and retouches his work? Why? What does it have to do with anything?

Kirk had it right when he posted the podium photo. No matter what, people would question the "integrity" of that photo. But really that question is so irrelevant. What difference does it make if the podium was there or he moved it?

BetterSense

6-Nov-2009, 11:07

And this is my point. The boundaries you say digital removed were already gone in traditional.
I don't know about those boundaries in particular, but boundaries WERE removed. Before digital, when you called something a photograph, it was a photochemically created photograph. Now, if you call something a photograph, it could be that, or an inkjet print, or a lightjet print. Not everyone, but some (myself included) feel that these technologies different enough so as to deserve to be distinguished. A skilled practitioner of one clearly is not necessarily a skilled practitioner of another. Some feel that a keyboardist shouldn't call himself a pianist, even if they are both clearly musicians and worthy of respect.
People are walking around using the word "photography" for technologies that did not exist before. It is natural for their to exist a "market demand" for delineating language, in the interest of integrity for everyone.

The sport can have integrity and the individual can have integrity.

Excellent insight.

There is angst in the photographic world due to a lack of such memberships/sports. As has been pointed out, digital came and changed things and things are still settling down. This dynamic reminds me of when I was younger and racing BMX.

BMX racing has rules. They are simple: 20 inch bike, single speed, no suspension. That's about it. One day, it seems, people started showing up with clipless pedals. For those that don't know, clipless pedals fasten your feet to the pedals and are a great advantage in power. They also change the riding a great deal, considering one's feet are fastened to the pedals, and can no longer come off for balance, bumps, or corners. This technology wasn't prohibited in the rule book, so it was allowed. Many feel that this should have been nipped in the bud and clipless pedals added to the list of "things BMX is not". It wasn't however. This resulted in an arms race where one had to "go clipless" to compete, even if he did not like this new version of bmx racing with new skills to learn and new stuff to buy. There was no place for the flat-pedal rider to go, his sport had vanished. There was no clipless league and flat-pedal league, there was only the "anything goes" league--which was effectively the clipless league--with everyone insisting that "it's still BMX". Long-standing track speed records were broken everywhere, by new riders with the clipless pedals. Flat-pedal riders had nowhere to go. To this day, if one wants to race BMX, he must learn to ride clipless pedals (which I can personally attest is an outright radical change in riding style compared to flat pedals), or not race BMX. I stopped racing. I took to the streets and built my own jumps with like-minded riders and continued to ride my bike where there were no rules and no competition to win.

Luckily, photography isn't a competition with a finish line and pack of contestants. Facing the lack of a group with boundaries to which one can claim membership [sport integrity], perhaps he should just focus on outlining his own personal rules [individual integrity]. One can race against himself, or ride for pleasure, using any pedals he wants.

percepts

6-Nov-2009, 11:18

I don't think that's quite it. My previous post about context addresses this.

It's not quite true that there are no rules ... more like there are many sets of rules. Trouble brews when you suggest adherence to a set of rules and then violate them. Like the example above: a composited image is fine in some contexts, but not when presented as a news picture.

Back to athletes... there are bodybuilding leagues where steroids are ok. There are also leagues where they're not. There's no lack of integrity in a bodybuilder injecting plutonium directly into his nuts in the anything-goes league ... but if he then lies in order to get into the clean league ... well, you get the idea.

Here also, integrity is in the man and his words, not in the technical process.

But you make the point perfectly without realising. By defining "body building" verses "athletics" you set out the boundaries for each which gives each its boudaries of integrity. Making them inclusive of under one term of "sport" clouds the issue in the same way as making all branches of photography inclusive under the one term clouds the issue. Hell, why even use the terms photography or acting or writing or painting. Lets not bother with those and just call everything art then absolutely anything goes. Why then do we use language to differentiate these things. It's human nature to want to do that and refusal to do it throws away any integrity you may have gained by doing it.

And so in photography by setting out the boundaries of "traditional photography" or "digital photography" or "hybrid photography" you give each validity and hence each has its own measure of integrity by being able to differentiate them. Failure to do that and you have none or you have such a wide set of boundaries no one is sure what they are looking at and therefore it has little if any integrity. You need boundaries to have integrity and you need to state the boundaries for that to happen.

BetterSense

6-Nov-2009, 11:21

I believe percepts just won the thread.

rdenney

6-Nov-2009, 11:42

If we are using sports as an analogy and trying to determine who is winning the thread, then we have all lost. Photography is not a competition, and there is no competitive advantage. Rules in sports are designed to keep everyone on the same playing field. Art has nothing to do with playing fields.

Percepts, it seems as though you came into this discussion with your conclusion already set in stone, so I have to ask, why did you bring it up? Many cogent arguments have been placed before you. You have 1.) not presented any concrete examples of where you draw the line, and that line seems to have shifted to and fro, and 2.) you haven't responded to many of the points being brought up to even demonstrate that you understand them. That suggests you were making a statement, not inviting a discussion. Just something to think about. Like photographs, ideas have to stand on their own.

You are still trying to draw boundaries around your idea of a photograph to include what you do and to exclude what others do. Do you not see that you are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of doing? You are trying to invalidate them by redefining them out of existence, or by declaring them to be, in essence, liars. That doesn't seem presumptuous to you?

If you think there is value in declaring your own boundaries, knock yourself out. If those boundaries have the value you suggest, then your declaration will bring admiration to you, and you'll deserve it.

And there are certainly boundaries in some contexts. All of us have acknowledged that. Some are implied, and some are stated. But none of the examples of those that anyone has brought up (and since you've brought up no concrete examples, this especially applies to you) hinge on the question of digital versus film.

There is a lot of good thinking in this thread, and I for one have been able to refine my own ideas considerably as a result of it. But it's good that I found my own value in participating. For you, this has been a religious discussion--you are taking your conclusion entirely on faith. I just don't see anything in the Bible (or the Quran, or Hammurabi's Code, or whatever) that states, "Thou shalt not make pictures with a Canon 5D, and change the color of the sky in Photoshop, and call it a Photograph."

Rick "a troll is one to kicks the anthill for his own amusement, not because he cares what the ants think" Denney

paulr

6-Nov-2009, 12:19

But you make the point perfectly without realising. By defining "body building" verses "athletics" you set out the boundaries for each which gives each its boudaries of integrity. Making them inclusive of under one term of "sport" clouds the issue in the same way as making all branches of photography inclusive under the one term clouds the issue

No, it doesn't cloud anything. Bodybuilding may be an annoying example, if it raises questions about what is a sport or not. This isn't the point.

The point is that in virtually all sports organizations, some ergogenic aids are allowed, and others are not. The distinction is always somewhat arbitrary, and gets fought out among members of that communty. Saying that one community has more integrity than another (a popular passtime among athletes who enjoy pissing contests) never has any logical grounding.

Integrity is lost when someone claims to follow the rules of one community and then doesn't.

paulr

6-Nov-2009, 12:23

The fundamental difference between digital and photography is that one is photographic, and one is digital. All other differences are superficial and subjective.

Congratulations. Another attempt at restating an opinion based on bizarre linguistic assumptions and logical fallacies.

I propose that anyone who can't pass a quiz on Struan's elegant lecture upthread be forced to go back to school before posting.

Marko

6-Nov-2009, 13:05

There is a lot of good thinking in this thread, and I for one have been able to refine my own ideas considerably as a result of it. But it's good that I found my own value in participating. For you, this has been a religious discussion--you are taking your conclusion entirely on faith. I just don't see anything in the Bible (or the Quran, or Hammurabi's Code, or whatever) that states, "Thou shalt not make pictures with a Canon 5D, and change the color of the sky in Photoshop, and call it a Photograph."

Rick "a troll is one to kicks the anthill for his own amusement, not because he cares what the ants think" Denney

Rick, I've been enjoying your posts in general, and I have to agree with this one in particular - rules are for sports and photography is art. Those who want to establish their own rigid rules and limit their own horizon to their little flowerpot are welcome to do so, as long as they don't try to impose them on the rest of us.

Which is exactly what threads like this are all about and that does make them some sort of a religion. Or, since there is really nothing about it neither in the Old nor in the New Testament nor Quran, as you noted, a cult might be a better descriptor. ;)

But even if there was something in one or more of the Holly Books, what about the atheists or even agnostics among us?

Perhaps they should take up their faith and leave the rest of us well alone - if they are right and we are wrong, the proof will soon arrive in the form of a thunderbolt or some other such biblical calamity. If not, well, the sky will still be there tomorrow for the (picture) taking. Whichever way one is inclined to do so.

The real surprise is why threads like this are allowed to fester in the mainstream area and are not being sent to The Lounge? It's been a pretty deserted village since the prohibition of Religion & Politics and it's missing its trolls... ;)

BrianShaw

6-Nov-2009, 13:50

Maybe this thread is the equivelent of a photographic crusade? Let's rid the earth of infidels who tell lies with photography! Let's rid the work of photography since photographs are lies.

clay harmon

6-Nov-2009, 14:02

I believe i have never read a bigger load of nonsense in my life.

I believe percepts just won the thread.

theBDT

6-Nov-2009, 15:51

I believe percepts just won the thread.

If by "won" you mean "failed spectacularly" then yes, you are right.

Kirk Gittings

6-Nov-2009, 16:03

So here is where I am at-to be perfectly honest. I don't make a point of how prints were made. Its not important to me or IMO important to the worth of the image. I just state the printing material in exhibits, gelatin silver print, Cibachrome or archival ink print or whatever because its tradition. I don't like the term inkjet so i don't use it. If someone asks then it an opportunity to educate them about the difference between expensive printers with carbon inks vs. their cheapo desktops. If anyone asks if the ink prints are really archival, I tell them we think so based on accelerated aging tests but won't know for 50 years or so for sure and state I give an unconditional replacement guarantee if they ever fade anyway (just as I do for silver prints in case there was a mistake made in the fixing dry mounting etc.). If anyone asks me what I shot it with or scanned it or what ever I tell them. Usually they don't ask. If they want to know about manipulation I tell them. Most of my work, whether in silver or ink is all heavily manipulated-tonally. If it matters to them outside of everyday technical curiosity. Like they are not going to buy it if it was shot digital and hint that somehow digital is suspect....I just think they are uninformed or an idiot and explain that manipulation was common place before digital too and that all my work is manipulated, I am an artist. My attitude is if you like the image buy it, since I give a guarantee against fading, everything else is pretty irrelevant. With that attitude, my ink prints have been selling well and I have been getting as many shows as ever, but curators never cared about such questions anyway. And if your work is hanging in a museum the public assume you know what you are doing anyway and generally ask questions just to make polite conversation.

I'm sure with little effort someone could find fault in this somehow, but its about as frank as I know how to be and seems to satisfy most people. I don't make much of my living with art prints anyway. I make my living as a commercial photographer. So I don't feel the desperation to sell my art work to feed the beast. This frees me mentally I think somewhat to be perfectly honest about my work. I don't feel the need to tell people what they want to hear. Photographic integrity? I guess I went to an atheist art school. I never had that class......believe in your work and other people will believe in it too.

tgtaylor

6-Nov-2009, 16:59

"...It is required of and should be the aim of the artist photographer to produce
in the likeness the best possible character and finest expression of which that face and figure could ever have been capable. But in the result there is to be no departure from truth in the delineation and representation of beauty, and expression, and character."

-Albert Sands Southworth, 1871.

tgtaylor

6-Nov-2009, 17:30

tg, your ideas are lyrical, beautiful, elegant, and wrong.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand sneering at algorithmic and mechanical thought, and on the other trying to use what superficially resembles a scientific description to advance your argument. If you want to base your photographic practice on your own poetic vision of what happens when light waves meet a sheet of film that's fine, but if you want to use the language and authority of science to persuade others that your ideas are correct, you are open to scientific refutation.

Wikipedia has come in for some stick in this thread, but the article on the latent image is pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_image

It gives some references to textbooks, but if you have access to a library the original papers are worth reading:

R.W.Gurney and N.F. Mott. Proc.Roy.Soc.A 164, 151-167 (1938)
J.W. Mitchell and N.F. Mott. Phil. Mag. 2 1149-1170 (1957)

If you read those papers, even if you skim them, ignore the maths and just look at the pictures, you will quickly see that light does indeed get 'captured' when it is absorbed, and that your vague handwaving notion of light waves 'drawing' something on the emulsion is just vague and speculative hogwash.

Struan,

Thank for for your first sentence - excluding the last two words thereof. If you strike ..."rearranging the distribution of..." from my paragraph, then "...what superficially resembles a scientific description description to advance your argument..." is in fact correct. Note the first sentence in the Wikipedia article you cited: "A latent image on photographic film is an invisible image produced by the exposure of the film to light. "

Finally I submit to you without citing authority the impossibility of "capturing" a particle or wave of light. In the latter case an electromagnetic wave continually propagates itself at its leading edge while continually collapsing at the rear. In a nutshell, it can't exist as a static entity outside of itself such as in a jar, an emulsion, or in a silicon chip. In the former case, the particle is never where you think it to be. The instant you try to capture it, it pops-up somewhere else. I believe this described in Schrodinger's Uncertainty Principle.

Thomas

Marko

6-Nov-2009, 17:40

I wonder what would Mr. Southworth as an artist daguerreotypist himself think of color photography, had it been available in his day? Or even Ansel's or Weston's images...

Would he find their work more or less "departing from the truth in delineation" etc. than the work of some modern digital photographers such as Elizabeth Carmel (http://www.elizabethcarmel.com/), Steve McCurry (http://www.stevemccurry.com/) or Joel Meyerowitz (http://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/), for example.

Of course, there is also the question of why would an opinion about photographic integrity of a photographer from the 19th century, however prominent, be more relevant in the light of this discussion than an opinion of someone who has seen and used all the tools available today?

Marko

6-Nov-2009, 17:46

Struan,

Thank for for your first sentence - excluding the last two words thereof. If you strike ..."rearranging the distribution of..." from my paragraph, then "...what superficially resembles a scientific description description to advance your argument..." is in fact correct. Note the first sentence in the Wikipedia article you cited: "A latent image on photographic film is an invisible image produced by the exposure of the film to light. "

Finally I submit to you without citing authority the impossibility of "capturing" a particle or wave of light. In the latter case an electromagnetic wave continually propagates itself at its leading edge while continually collapsing at the rear. In a nutshell, it can't exist as a static entity outside of itself such as in a jar, an emulsion, or in a silicon chip. In the former case, the particle is never where you think it to be. The instant you try to capture it, it pops-up somewhere else. I believe this described in Schrodinger's Uncertainty Principle.

Thomas

It's actually Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Schrödinger, besides being catty ;), was busy developing, well Schrödinger's Equation, which shows how a quantum state of a physical system changes in time.

Your knowledge of physics, unfortunately, is no match for your hubris or you wouldn't be trying to argue physics with a physicist.

:rolleyes:

P.S.

I am not being caustic here, only a bit sarcastic.

paulr

6-Nov-2009, 18:47

...rules are for sports and photography is art.

Photography is a lot of things ... some of those things are art, some of them are much more utilitarian ... and some of these are connected with fields that very much have rules. I've mentioned journalism. There's also criminal evidence photography, and scientific phography. Even something as simple as product photography ... if you run a national ad for your widget, and it's retouched to the point of being materially deceptive, you'll have to answer to the FTC.

In some cases, "rules" might be the wrong word ... but there's often something worth discussing. Maybe "expectations" is a better way to put it. If you sell someone a print that looks like a straight photograph but is a composite--and you don't tell them--they may feel cheated. If you sell someone something that looks like gelatin silver print but is actually made of sugar syrup and cocoa powder--and it gets eaten by ants--they may very well feel cheated. Even if you never explicitely lied.

Do people have a right to feel cheated in these cases? That's a difficult question, but I understand why they do. This, I think, is where questions of integrity come to bear.

tgtaylor

6-Nov-2009, 19:20

I am not being caustic here, only a bit sarcastic.

Actually I find that you are neither caustic nor sarcastic but, as noted elsewhere on this forum, one that, although dead wrong, will nevertheless try to convince everyone that you are right. Integrity, the subject matter of this thread, is something that you clearly don't possess.

Marko

6-Nov-2009, 19:24

Photography is a lot of things ... some of those things are art, some of them are much more utilitarian ... and some of these are connected with fields that very much have rules. I've mentioned journalism. There's also criminal evidence photography, and scientific phography. Even something as simple as product photography ... if you run a national ad for your widget, and it's retouched to the point of being materially deceptive, you'll have to answer to the FTC.

That goes without saying.

My understanding, however, was that we are talking about art photography here, because documentarian genres have their sets of rules pretty much developed, as you noted. This understanding is reinforced by the fact that in those disciplines, digital vs. film friction is simply non-existent. I don't think anybody shoots ads or forensics on film any more, and I'm pretty much sure that the same could be said for journalism and even science.

That leaves art and identifying specific craft with integrity of the entire artistic discipline seems disingenuous at the very least or even delusional at the more extreme end. Especially if it is being motivated by marketing goals.

Marko

6-Nov-2009, 19:30

Actually I find that you are neither caustic nor sarcastic but, as noted elsewhere on this forum, one that, although dead wrong, will nevertheless try to convince everyone that you are right. Integrity, the subject matter of this thread, is something that you clearly don't possess.

You are totally and incorrigibly clueless, QED. I don't know what is it that you do for a living, but you should consider marketing or sales of some sort or the other. Those are about the only areas where screaming and posturing are considered assets.

I am not in the least bit interested in your "findings", I am simply occasionally amused by the sheer nonsense, that's all, especially the latest bit about the Uncertainty Principle.

Uncertainty indeed! :rolleyes:

Brian Ellis

6-Nov-2009, 19:50

"These no-grain, sharp, well exposed and printed photographs should in many cases find their way to the circular file of an aspiring artist because they amount to nothing more than a documentarian's feeble and ultimately failed attempt at capturing "reality" in a manner that is "real and possessing of integrity".
Donald Miller

"So you've just dismissed the entire lifes work of Cartier Bresson then"
percepts

Surely even you know that Cartier-Bresson's work was the antithesis of the kind of "no-grain, sharp, well exposed and printed" photographs that are the subject of the message to which you responded. While his printer was usually able to salvage passable prints from what Cartier-Bresson handed him, the negatives often were famously bad from a technical standpoint. In other words, far from dismissing Cartier-Bresson's life work, his work isn't even the kind of work contemplated by the message to which you're responding.

paulr

6-Nov-2009, 19:56

My understanding, however, was that we are talking about art photography here...

I'm glad someone has an understanding of what this thread is about. I don't. :)
I'll defer the serious questions to you, if any show up.

Meanwhile I'll get back to the humble job of sweeping up the bizarre assumptions and tortured logic from the gutters ...

Marko

6-Nov-2009, 20:12

I'm glad someone has an understanding of what this thread is about. I don't. :)
I'll defer the serious questions to you, if any show up.

I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for those either. :)

I didn't claim that my understanding was necessarily correct, though. The few comments I made were more a result of desperation than anything else. I still think this thread and a recent few others like it should belong to The Lounge, if there is a reason for their existence at all.

percepts

7-Nov-2009, 12:40

paulr

7-Nov-2009, 13:39

percepts

7-Nov-2009, 14:08

Your point? I mentioned different uses of photography (news, evidence, art). You're trying to make some parallel (I think?) with a type of subject matter. No idea what that connection is.

And somehow this has to do with analog/digital? if you're suggesting that changing colors, removing or adding objects, etc.. was introduced by digital technology, then you should consider studying the history of your medium before spouting off about it. Photography was barely a decade old when all these manipulations became commonplace.

No, its to do with the integrity of what you are looking at. A natural enviroment image which has been doctored by any means is not a natural environment image. It has no integrity. Thats not a digital vs Analogue argument.

Ultimately this all comes down to the personal integrity of every photographer. If they mostly don't have any or don't consider it to be an issue, then photography as a whole has no integrity. But any individual can have integrity in their work. Its the photographers call and I think it's something we should all consider.

Seems like contemplating integrity has touched more than a few nerves.

Anyone care to start a thread on Artistic integrity?

Bruce Watson

7-Nov-2009, 15:28

It occurs to me that now so much photography is manipulated and printed digitally, that the photographers vision of what the result should look like, is based at least partly and pssibly greatly, on what they can achieve in digital manipulation which they may very well not have been able to achieve photographically. Therefore I ask, is it a lie to call a digitallly manipulated image "Fine Art Photography" when in reality it would display more integrity if it were called "Fine Art digital manipulation from a photograph". Or should we just accept that digital manipulation has something to do with photography?

How about this then:

It occurs to me that now so much photography is manipulated in the darkroom that the photographers' visions of what the result should look like is based at least partly and possibly greatly on what they can achieve by manipulation in the darkroom which they may very well not have been able to achieve photographically. Therefore I ask, is it a lie to call a darkroom manipulated image "Fine Art Photography" when in reality it would display more integrity if it were called "Fine Art manipulation from a photograph"? Or should we just accept that manipulation in the darkroom has something to do with photography?

jim kitchen

7-Nov-2009, 16:43

No, its to do with the integrity of what you are looking at. A natural enviroment image which has been doctored by any means is not a natural environment image. It has no integrity.

percepts,

Since you seem to be an expert armchair critic, regarding this "integrity" subject, could you possibly post an image that you produced, so we as a group can see how we should make an image with integrity, going forward?

I do not believe this group has ever had the pleasure of seeing your work, other than your continuous, and ever changing point of view.

I would love to see one of "your" integrity images... :)

jim "everyone's a critic..." k

r.e.

7-Nov-2009, 17:54

Mr. Kitchen, sorry, but that is not an argument. It is an attempt to dismiss someone without troubling onself to go to the intellectual effort of making an argument, and consequently it reflects poorly on you and not at all on precept.

Whether one agrees with percept or not, his views on nature photography are in fact pretty mainstream.

For example, the UK's Natural History Museum in London, together with an arm of the British Broadcasting Corporation, annually holds a major competition for wildlife and landscape photographers. This competition has has been running for 45 years (since 1964). For 2009, there were 43,000 entries. The judges are listed, with their biographies, here: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy-entry/Judges.jsp In this forum, perhaps the most visible name is Jack Dykinga, who has also been a competitor. In 2007, the last time that I saw the exhibit arising from this competition, he received an honourable mention.

The results of the 2009 competition are curently on display at the museum, where they will be exhibited until next April. It is an extremely successful event, which is why substantial museum space is dedicated to it for six months, with lineups to get in. I'll be going next month, as I did two years ago, because both the photography and the presentation are of high caliber.

In January, they will be calling for entries for the 2010 competition. The rules say, in part:

5. Digital Guidelines
If an image reaches the final round of judging you must supply the following:

* RAW file (e.g. *.NEF, *.CR2, *.CRW), or original JPEG as captured by the camera. DNG files are only permitted if DNG is the native RAW format of the camera.
* The largest file (preferably TIF), to check that it is an adequate file size for reproduction in the exhibition and book.
* Or original transparency or black and white negative. Winning and commended original transparencies will be kept by the Competition office until October for reproduction purposes.
* All finalists will be required to provide full picture information, such as the species and where, when and how the picture was taken. Technical details are also required (i.e. camera, lens, exposure, speed, and other equipment used).

...

Calibration and colour Images must be colour profiled/corrected using a calibrated monitor and utilising Adobe RGB 98 colour space before submission. Allowances will NOT be made for poorly colour managed/corrected images. Please ensure your images are not over saturated and faithfully represent the subject matter.
Compositing and multiple exposures are not allowed. Sharpening is allowed (but use sparingly – many images are ruined by over-sharpening). Cropping is allowed, but please be mindful of the effect of cropping on file size.

Adjusting your image Digital adjustments are only acceptable if limited to minor cleaning work (removing dust spots), levels, curves, colour, saturation and contrast work. Sharpening is allowed (but use sparingly - many images are ruined by over-sharpening). Cropping is allowed, but please be mindful of the effect of cropping on file size.

The faithful representation of what was captured at the time of the shot being taken must be maintained. Compositing and multiple exposures are not allowed. Sandwich shots, double exposures, photographs which consist in any way of more than one separate image and images that have been digitally manipulated outside of rule 5 are not eligible. Adding or removing animals, parts of animals, plants, distractions, people etc into/from the image is not allowed.

...

7. Black and white images are only permitted in the 'Nature in Black and White' category. Digital files or scans of transparencies, or scans of black and white prints can be submitted. Pictures can be taken on black-and-white film or converted to a black-and-white file (digital images). Original slides, negatives or camera files will be requested if your image reaches the final stages of the judging. Dodging and burning is permitted. Sepia tone images are allowed. Please refer to rule 5 for all other rules on digital submissions.

Clearly, these rules reflect a particular aesthetic. Given that the competition started in 1964, it would be interesting to know how long the substance of the above has been part of the rules. Specifically, does the substance pre-date digital processing, or are the rules a reaction to it?

I'm kind of disappointed that no-one, other than Rick, has addressed the questions that I raised about Shepard Fairey's poster for the Obama campaign, because I think that that is very much where the rubber hits the road on the main issue that has been raised by this thread, which I think can and should be discussed without reference to integrity in the ethical sense of the word.

jim kitchen

7-Nov-2009, 19:19

R.e.

Did I address this issue with you?

Go figure, another arm chair critic...

jim k

r.e.

7-Nov-2009, 19:28

Mr. Kitchen, if you want to have a private discussion with percept, that is what personal messaging is for. In fact, you took your shot at him in public, and not surprisingly you got a public reaction.

This is the second time in so many posts that you have trotted out the expression "armchair critic". On what basis do you call me that, and assuming that there is a basis for the remark, which there isn't, what does it mean? It sounds like just another cheap shot hiding a lack of anything substantive to say, not to mention a lack of basic manners.

jim kitchen

7-Nov-2009, 19:45

r.e.,

I love a good fight... :)

Public questions are natural, and whether you have an issue with what I said, I could care less, where I conduct that with immediate effect.

Intellect has nothing to do with the question I posed to percepts.

Again, where it seems that I must repeat myself, I addressed this question to percepts, not you.

jim k

r.e.

7-Nov-2009, 19:53

I addressed this question to percepts, not you.

In fact, you didn't ask him a question. You called for him to post a photograh in this thread in order to establish, apparently to your satisfaction, his credentials to express an opinion. That is juvenile. If you have something substantive to say, why don't you say it.

As for this idea that you apparently have that you can take a cheap shot at someone in public, and then demand that only the subject of your shot respond, well ... that just isn't how internet fora work, nor for that matter how the world works, thank God.

rdenney

7-Nov-2009, 20:05

And don't forget the natural enviroment as we wouldn't like to distort that would we. Or would we. Maybe make the grass look a little greener. Remove a telegraph pole or two. Take out a few unsightly roof tops poking up above the tree line. Ah, thats better, it looks natural now....

That's exactly what any graphic artist might do, and often even when fulfilling a documentary assignment. Have you ever seen an architectural rendering with telephone poles in the foreground? Yet those renderings are expected to show a prospective building in its natural environment.

Personally, though, I find it too much work to clean extraneous stuff off with Photoshop, so I just position myself to avoid the stuff I don't want to see. But is that any more honest? My photo of Delicate Arch in Utah was made from the middle of a crowd of about 1000 people who had hiked to it to see the sunset on the arch. But my photo makes it look like it's never been sullied by man. Is that honest?

(A.D.D. moment: Speaking of telegraph, integrity was lost when we abandoned Morse code for voice, or, gawdhelpus, digital communications. Just ask any 80-year-old ham radio operator. Your use of the term and your method of argumentation suggests you'd fit right in on the 75-meter band--inside joke for American radio amateurs)

This thread has already reminded us of Adams's ruthless (his word) removal of the "LP" from the side of the hill in Winter Sunrise. That was done with a brush, filled with ink. It was painted on the photograph, and it changes the scene from that viewpoint, yet photograph it remains, with no issue of integrity.

You are defining integrity as a photograph that shows truth. There can be no other way to describe all your various descriptions (and they are far more various that you seem to realize). The concept of photography-as-truth has been fully discussed, with many, many examples given approaching it from about six different directions. But you don't engage on those examples, you merely restate your original thesis, with the variation of the moment (in this case, now we are talking about "nature" photography, though that's the first time in what seems like 114 pages that you have mentioned it), as if stating it yet again will make it more persuasive.

I think it should be clear to you at this point that few define integrity as you do, and that leaves you with two choices whether you like it or not: 1.) your definition of integrity is wrong, or 2.) we are most of us liars. You are clearly going with the second position, and then you wonder, perhaps, why your statements are treated the way they are.

I think it entirely consistent with everything said so far that if someone...

1.) claims their nature photo is unretouched (which was the word we used before digital came along), and it turns out that it is, they have lied and violated their integrity...

2.) claims their newspaper photo is unretouched (which is an expected and stated requirement for photojournalists), and it turns out that it is, they are likely to lose their jobs...

3.) claims their photo was made using film and an enlarger, and it was really made with a Canon 5D and an Epson printer, then they are guilty of lying and have violated their integrity...

4.) testified in front of a jury that a photo they made is unretouched and they are found to have lied about that, they have perjured themselves...

5.) claimed that such-and-such is true because they have a photo showing it, and the photo turns out to be retouched, that they have violated their integrity.

6.) done photographic work under a contract that lays out specific boundaries for retouching, and they violate those boundaries, that they may be subject to legal action.

While all those things find general agreement, it is the applications of those photographs that require the integrity, not the photography itself. There are many other applications of photography that have no such constraints, and are still called photography and their practitioners still respected as honest.

Rick "sheesh!" Denney

Marko

7-Nov-2009, 20:12

Clearly, these rules reflect a particular aesthetic. Given that the competition started in 1964, it would be interesting to know how long the substance of the above has been part of the rules. Specifically, does the substance pre-date digital processing, or are the rules a reaction to it?

Clearly, those rules reflect organizers' bias, more than esthetic per se, otherwise they would exclude all over-saturated images, such as those made on Velvia or similar films, and not just digital. With all due respect to the organizers, the rules that pertain specifically to digital submissions read like they were written by someone with rather limited experience and understanding of digital workflow.

As an example, while it is nice of them to allow sharpening, it is also indicative of the very basic misunderstanding of the critical role sharpening plays in digital capture and processing. And then they immediately go on and get downright patronizing toward those who do use it regularly with that silly little lecture about "many images being ruined by over-sharpening".

These are just two examples, there are other rather prominent awkward constructs in there, such as the line about DNG files...

But that's their competition and they certainly have the right to set the rules as they see fit. Having personal integrity as a photographer in this case would mean either to ignore competitions with such clumsy rules OR to follow the rules to the letter once accepted by sending a submission.

cowanw

7-Nov-2009, 20:16

Now, what had no integrity has regained it.
http://www.globaltvbc.com/technology/Harvey+Oswald+photo+real+Computer+expert/2193133/story.html
Regards
Bill

Merg Ross

7-Nov-2009, 20:59

"Why I am wasting two minutes of my life posting this is a mystery even to me, but here goes"

Yeah I got sucked in too.

Should we have a special section for PHOTO THEOLOGY?:)

Or, perhaps you could have a "Lounge" section.

Mark Sawyer

7-Nov-2009, 21:25

Is photographic integrity dead?

No, but it's walking with a limp, and I'm pretty sure it has a really bad infection...

r.e.

8-Nov-2009, 08:28

Later this week I'n going to an exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan entitled New Photography 2009. For me, following this discussion has been useful as background. MOMA's description of the exhibit:

New Photography 2009 is a thematic presentation of significant recent work in photography that examines and expands the conventional definitions of the medium. Although the six artists in this installation—Walead Beshty, Daniel Gordon, Leslie Hewitt, Carter Mull, Sterling Ruby, and Sara VanDerBeek—represent diverse points of view, working methods, and pictorial modes ranging from abstract to representational, their images all begin in the studio or the darkroom and result from processes involving collection, assembly, and manipulation. Many of the works are made with everyday materials and objects, as well as images from the Internet, magazines, newspapers, and books. Some of the artists also work in other mediums and their pictures relate to disciplines such as drawing, sculpture, and installation. As traditional photographic techniques are being quickly replaced by digital technologies, the artists included here examine the process and structure of making photographs.

It might be interesting to go from MOMA over to the nearby Pace MacGill Gallery, which is exhibiting Bruce Davidson and Roy DeCarava.

paulr

8-Nov-2009, 23:35

"...recent work in photography that examines and expands the conventional definitions of the medium."

What's implicit here is that conventional definitions get examined and expanded all the time. The earliest definition, arrived at by consensus in Daguerre's time, had to be examined and expanded with the advent of paper negatives, and again with wet plates, and again with dry plates, and again with film, and again with kodachrome ...

This is the nature of most technological media, and most art media of any kind. The only constant, as the cliché goes, is change.

At any point in time, the work that is most interesting to a contemporary art gallery or museum is work that challenges old assumptions and definitions. If you want to see something you haven't seen, then that's the likely place to look.

percepts

20-Jan-2010, 13:39

Whether one agrees with percept or not, his views on nature photography are in fact pretty mainstream.

For example, the UK's Natural History Museum in London, together with an arm of the British Broadcasting Corporation, annually holds a major competition for wildlife and landscape photographers. This competition has has been running for 45 years (since 1964). For 2009, there were 43,000 entries. The judges are listed, with their biographies, here: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy-entry/Judges.jsp In this forum, perhaps the most visible name is Jack Dykinga, who has also been a competitor. In 2007, the last time that I saw the exhibit arising from this competition, he received an honourable mention.

The results of the 2009 competition are curently on display at the museum, where they will be exhibited until next April. It is an extremely successful event, which is why substantial museum space is dedicated to it for six months, with lineups to get in. I'll be going next month, as I did two years ago, because both the photography and the presentation are of high caliber.

In January, they will be calling for entries for the 2010 competition. The rules say, in part:

Clearly, these rules reflect a particular aesthetic. Given that the competition started in 1964, it would be interesting to know how long the substance of the above has been part of the rules. Specifically, does the substance pre-date digital processing, or are the rules a reaction to it?

I'm kind of disappointed that no-one, other than Rick, has addressed the questions that I raised about Shepard Fairey's poster for the Obama campaign, because I think that that is very much where the rubber hits the road on the main issue that has been raised by this thread, which I think can and should be discussed without reference to integrity in the ethical sense of the word.

see what I mean...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8470962.stm

Drew Wiley

20-Jan-2010, 21:07

Greg Blank

24-Jan-2010, 17:15

The truth in what you say is a direct ratio to the work showcased in (Insertname) -X-changefinder magazine. :)

I'm probably stupid to weigh in on this thread at all. But one thing I've often noted is
how in the Far East you have an aristic tradition which frequently honors parameters
of tradition, yet excellence within it, while here in the West "modernism" and
"creativity" have run amuck. In the museum circuit in particular there is a trend
to push novelty for novelty's sake. After all, you have to shock or come up with
something radically new every few months if you want to generate talk and sell
tickets. Reminds me of back when the hippies all tried so hard to look different from
everyone else that they all ended up looking the same; same for the punk rockers
of the next generation. But one thing is certain, whatever is really cool and in vogue
in the museums today will probably seem boring tomorrow. And when the dust
settles, a very few individuals in each phase or genre will still stand out.

Kirk Gittings

24-Jan-2010, 17:44

I'm probably stupid to weigh in on this thread at all. But one thing I've often noted is
how in the Far East you have an aristic tradition which frequently honors parameters
of tradition, yet excellence within it, while here in the West "modernism" and
"creativity" have run amuck. In the museum circuit in particular there is a trend
to push novelty for novelty's sake. After all, you have to shock or come up with
something radically new every few months if you want to generate talk and sell
tickets. Reminds me of back when the hippies all tried so hard to look different from
everyone else that they all ended up looking the same; same for the punk rockers
of the next generation. But one thing is certain, whatever is really cool and in vogue
in the museums today will probably seem boring tomorrow. And when the dust
settles, a very few individuals in each phase or genre will still stand out.

Are you really knowledgeable about say contemporary Japanese photography? I am not but in architecture where I am more knowledgeable, I would say that Japanese architects are pushing the envelope as much or more than western architects. Japan is certainly as much a consumer society (trendy products and trendy ideas) as the west. I find it hard to believe that photography is any different.

Drew Wiley

24-Jan-2010, 20:58

Kirk - I've been out of the loop for awhile, but at one point I did exhibit with a group
of allegedly "cutting-edge" Asian abstract expressionists (oddly, as both the only
non-Asian and as the only photographer). What was interesting was how all of them
in some aspects took off perhaps even more radically from their Western counterparts, but still managed to instill a very traditional flavor into it. You could
detect both influences present. But I don't think anyone would ever mistake their
work for something coming out of New York! There was just a lot of that more
subtle rhythm adopted from nature and idolized in Eastern tradition - more of a
"Zen" for lack of a better word. I actually felt comfortable within that sort of context. And I've noticed it in a lot of work since. A close friend of mine was very
involved in brining contemporary Chinese painting in particular to the attention of
American museums. You're probably a lot more up to date about what's going on in architecture in this respect, but here inthe Bay Area there are Hong Kong quirks like Fung Shui (did I spell that right?) being practiced by architects due to commercial
demand. But there are no doubt many, many exceptions to any stereotype.