Re: are photographs still photographs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
My definition of a photograph is simple: An image produced by projecting light onto a sensitized surface.
In essence I feel this way. To me using a digital devise to record images is imaging; what I do with film and paper is photography. Photography is literally writing with light. I know "photographers" that have never printed a single image, they've all gone on the web. To me that's imaging and they are imagers. They capture, manipulate and display an image on a screen.
Just my dos centavos...
Re: are photographs still photographs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bvstaples
In essence I feel this way. To me using a digital devise to record images is imaging; what I do with film and paper is photography. Photography is literally writing with light. I know "photographers" that have never printed a single image, they've all gone on the web. To me that's imaging and they are imagers. They capture, manipulate and display an image on a screen.
Just my dos centavos...
I basically don't care if the sensitized surface is made from silver or CMOS.
An image made digitally and displayed on the web is still a photograph. What else would it be? A painting? It's a question of how much of the image is drawn versus photographed, and I think that hinges on whether the drawn part becomes the point of the image.
Rick "thinking that 'imaging' is an ambiguous term that could apply to nearly any visual art" Denney
Re: are photographs still photographs...
Hasselblad is wooing the advertising and fashion photographers who have a need and a budget for their cameras. Unsurprisingly, a lot of the currently-popular heavily-retouched fashion work makes its way into their glossy materials.
Forget retouching portraits and all that pictorialist fuzzy wuzzy nonsense. If you want to see the real forerunner of today's fashion shoots you need to look at machine tool illustration, particularly from the 30s and 40s. I always get the giggles when I see that perfect plastic skin look on the covers of magazines. Somewhere out there is a lathe fetishist in permanent rapture.
See here for examples of the look that was once standard in literally hundreds of thousands of catalogues, manuals and textbooks:http://www.lathes.co.uk/myford/page12.html
Re: are photographs still photographs...
"Imagers" and "Print-makers" are both just subsets of the large set of "Photographers". Another sub-set of photographers would be "Transparency-makers" -- those whose final products are transparencies. But one must be careful about drawing boundaries, as most people are hybrids and such labels can be as mis-leading as they are helpful.
In the sub-set of "Print-makers", there are further subsets of digital printers, wet/darkroom printers (further divided into traditional processes and alternative processes printers), and custom printers (people who have other people printing for them, or print for others).
But, IMO, all are photographers -- all use light to somehow "draw".
Vaughn
Re: are photographs still photographs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vaughn
"Imagers" and "Print-makers" are both just subsets of the large set of "Photographers". Another sub-set of photographers would be "Transparency-makers" -- those whose final products are transparencies. But one must be careful about drawing boundaries, as most people are hybrids and such labels can be as mis-leading as they are helpful.
In the sub-set of "Print-makers", there are further subsets of digital printers, wet/darkroom printers (further divided into traditional processes and alternative processes printers), and custom printers (people who have other people printing for them, or print for others).
But, IMO, all are photographers -- all use light to somehow "draw".
Vaughn
Very eloquently put.
I draw a distinction with the print itself however. There is to me an intrinsic difference between a wet print that is the actual artifact of chemicals responding to light vs a inkjet print which is a reproduction of a somewhat analogous process happening on chip. One is actual, the other derived from. That makes the print itself qualitatively different.
Re: are photographs still photographs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toyon
Very eloquently put.
I draw a distinction with the print itself however. There is to me an intrinsic difference between a wet print that is the actual artifact of chemicals responding to light vs a inkjet print which is a reproduction of a somewhat analogous process happening on chip. One is actual, the other derived from. That makes the print itself qualitatively different.
This is completely arbitrary and makes no sense.
Why is an inkjet print a reproduction of the process that happens on chip and why is wet print not a reproduction on what happens on film?
Why is chemical response to light more important than electrical response to light?
What is an inkjet of a scanned film? And what is a wet print of a digitally captured photograph?
These distinctions make even less sense as we go forward.
Re: are photographs still photographs...
All photographs are abstractions so all we are really talking about is a matter of degrees and everyone has their own line in the sand that separates "photography" and "illustration". My own tolerance for illustration is pretty low but that's just me. I do believe however that photos are really just tools that can be used for all sort of things.
Re: are photographs still photographs...
Toyon, the definition of a photographic "print" becomes a tougher thing to define than "photographer" -- and the definition becomes more of a personal thing. Some might consider a transparency displayed lit from behind, as a print. Some say a print must be "hand-made", etc.
How to define the difference between the inkjet print and the Fuji Crystal Archive print (wet process) that was printed using a digital file? How many angels can dance of the head of a pin? LOL!
Everything else being equal, I prefer the hand-made print -- but that is just my bias, not an artistic standard.
Vaughn
Re: are photographs still photographs...
Re: are photographs still photographs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Galli
time to unsubscribe??
What? And lose a marketing tool? ;) Having a rough day down on the ranch, Jim?
Vaughn