The New Must-Have Magazine

[Robert A. Zeichner]

It's been my observation that the names used to describe some contemporary things are often "stolen" from a well established process from the past in an attempt to provide some continuity or help those unfamiliar with the latest stuff connect with it. Often though, it's done purely for marketing purposes.

I think what disturbs many of us (I know it bugs me) is when someone with nothing older than the experience of working with something like Photoshop, talks about unsharp masking, as an example, as though the developers of Photoshop invented it. Many things done in the traditional wet darkroom for decades have been translated into software-based procedures and in some cases the photo-mechanical process names follow along. The cognicenti realize this and the rest think they have stumbled upon something new.

"Electronic Cinematography" seems to have spawned a new generation of movie makers many of whom have had zero experience exposing motion picture film or working with an experienced motion picture crew. They use terminology and acquire accessory equipment that, in their minds, make them feel and appear like they are making films, but a good many of them have had nothing more than video experience and seldom have had any experience in traditional photography, which is a fundimental requirement in my view.

Even verbage used in specifications of equipment has been borrowed from past technology. This gives me much greater reason for concern because with this alteration, there is the danger of redefining basic science in the minds of those not inclined to do their own investigation. The example that annoys me the most is "Resolution". In the electronic camera industry, pixel density has become the new definition of resolution. Trouble is no one says that in their literature. If you examine the long established definition of resolution and the measurement methods involved in establishing that specification, the numbers are simply not as impressive as saying x.x megapixels. Did we ever count the number of individual grain particles on a piece of film and claim that as resolution? Doesn't the lens play some role in all of this? The marketing folks want to talk megapixels because raw numbers are the thing that customers can hang their hat on and help to drive sales. They are not interested in lp/mm or MTF curves and such, because that requires an understanding of the technical that most buyers of this technology are unwilling to learn.

So yes Brian, "Darkroom" magazine rubs me the wrong way too. e-Darkroom or d-Darkroom would be a more appropriate title I suppose and it would prevent the inevitable disappointment of those expecting the wet stuff.

About 35 years ago I had the pleasure of filming Punxatawny Phil being extracted from his tree stump at Gobblers Knob. After the ceremony, we were invited to the home of Dr. Sam Light, then president of the Punxatawny Ground Hog Club, where we were served up some goodies prepared by his wife, Elaine Light, author of Gourmet Cooking With The Groundhog. We asked how her book was doing and she claimed that half the comments she got from folks who hadn't yet read the book expressed revulsion at the idea of cooking with Groundhog meat, but that many who had bought and read the book sent letters expressing disappoinment that there were no receipes in it for cooking with Groundhog meat. You just can't please them all.

[Marko]

Robert, I can certainly see where you're coming from, but in all honesty, arguments like yours were used at every technology juncture in history. Including the invention of photography itself, when all the painters went balistic over the intrusion.

But the real irony here is that the very term Darkroom was originally also usurped by photographers because it simply fit the description and because they did not have a better term.

And now, when a very specialized photographic magazine uses the term everybody gets a conniption fit because it isn't their kind of photography!

[Dave Parker]

Marko,

By the very fact that it has required a darkroom or darkspace for the 150 years that traditional photography has been around to ply the trade(Polaroid not withstanding) and the fact it does not require a "darkroom" to ply the digital photography trade, and many seem bent on trying to merge the two different mediums by cross over use of the terms, seems to be where the problem comes, being a digital photographer does not require darkness, being a traditional photographer, still requires the dark for part of the process, I have no problem with digital photography, but I have a problem with the melding of the two in this manner...because it is in fact misleading. And no, I am not having a conniption fit, I use both types of photography in my business...

Dave

[Marko]

Dave,

You actually raise several good points here. I understand where you are coming from but I believe that I have good reason to respectfully disagree.

My main point is that the very term Darkroom originated much earlier and was "borrowed" by the early photographers from traditional painters. Painting was around much longer than 150 years prior to that. They didn't invent it either - see one of my previous posts for the link to the explanation. It is a paradigm too good to be confined to a single, narrow art discipline. Or just a narrower part of a single discipline, but that's my next point.

As for melding of "traditional" and "digital" photography, I don't see a problem in that either. As a matter of fact, every single technolgy is bound to become "traditional" if it a) were used for more than a single generation and b) is still around when the new technology is introduced. To illustrate this point, what you consider "traditional" photography has been around mere 150 years. A blink of an eye, really, compared to the amount of time really traditional art disciplines such as painting or sculpting have existed. And even that is not the real traditional photography in the way daguerreotype was.

Whenever new technologies were introduced, they aroused the ire of the traditionalists of the time and they also inspired inovators to experiment with both new and old. After certain amount of time, the new would become traditional and the traditional would become historical. Or alternative in this case.

But we are not even talking different art disciplines here, only different craft technologies. It's still the same camera, same lens same everything, even the light sensitive medium used for capturing the image.

What we are actually witnessing is the process of chemical photography changing status from traditional to alternative and digital photography moving into the mainstream. I would consider it exiciting rather than disturbing, as it is something not every generation gets to see firsthand.

[adrian tyler]

marko is suggesting it but there is something fundamental here that does not seem to be part of anyone's equasion, and that is how can anything as new a photography really have this so called tradition, and who would be so bold as to put a parenthesis in the history and say "this is it"?

surely the exciting fact at its inception was that it was a method to capture images, not how it captured images. the rest of this argument must be to do with nostalgia? or perhaps fear?, but i don't see how it has any relevacy to photography itself?

[Dave Parker]

Awe, but there in comes another issue Marko, even though the term was used by traditional painters, you still were not required to have a darkroom to paint.

I myself am not excited about digital photography, I just use it as another tool for a portion of my business, but for the most part, I am not excited about film photography either, it is a tool for a part of my business..

And I think another part of the equation is what is the definition of art, there are still many in the world that don't even consider traditional photography as an art form, I have often times been told I am not an artist by a gallery owner, but I am a documenter,.

The guy has the right to call his magazine what ever he likes, the masses will determine if it is popular, or even needed. I do know that if I saw a new magazine on the rack, called "Darkroom" and grabbed it in passing only to find out its focus was digital photography when I got the chance to read it, I would be very disappointed..which has happened in the past, as I am well know for picking several magazines based on titles when in the book store, only to find out the title was deceptive to the actual content of the magazine.

Dave

[Gordon Moat]

When a chip got placed behind a lens, the result was (and still is) called a digital camera. With more SLRs becoming common and affordable with imaging chips in them, the term D-SLR became more common. When someone wants to know if you have such an imaging device, the question asked is: Do you have a digital camera, to distinguish that from: Do you have a camera?

So tell someone you are a photographer, and some questions might come up. One might be the type of camera. Another might be whether you have a studio. Then a different question might be: Do you have a darkroom? So if we let Scott Kelby define language usage for us, those with a computer loaded with PhotoShop, or the latest copy of Adobe Lightroom, can then answer yes. So when is a darkroom not a darkroom?


Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[David G. Gagnon]

He could have gootten around Copyright infringement and not misleading or disappointing traditionalists by calling it "Undarkroom".

DG

[Marko]

The guy has the right to call his magazine what ever he likes, the masses will determine if it is popular, or even needed. I do know that if I saw a new magazine on the rack, called "Darkroom" and grabbed it in passing only to find out its focus was digital photography when I got the chance to read it, I would be very disappointed..which has happened in the past, as I am well know for picking several magazines based on titles when in the book store, only to find out the title was deceptive to the actual content of the magazine.

But you see, it is your expectations that are deceiving you, not his title.

I am not saying that you are wrong, however, and neither is he. Both of you are using a term much older than your perspective areas of interest in the very context of those areas.

Chances are that Darkroom the magazine will be sold mainly through subscription, and much less through bookstores, as it is aimed at a very particular, narrowly defined audience.

In a word, if you don't know what the magazine is all about, than it's not for you anyway. Just like View Camera, although with a circulation likely at least an order of magnitude greater.

[Marko]

When a chip got placed behind a lens, the result was (and still is) called a digital camera. With more SLRs becoming common and affordable with imaging chips in them, the term D-SLR became more common. When someone wants to know if you have such an imaging device, the question asked is: Do you have a digital camera, to distinguish that from: Do you have a camera?

Funny how times change, isn't it? There was a time when the word "camera" conjured up images of huge things with bellows using glass plates and explosive powder as a flash.

So if we let Scott Kelby define language usage for us, those with a computer loaded with PhotoShop, or the latest copy of Adobe Lightroom, can then answer yes. So when is a darkroom not a darkroom?

Scott Kelby can define language usage for you no more than you can do it for him. If you are not using Lightroom, as I am given to understand, than why should you care how those who do call their work environment?