are photographs still photographs...

[rdenney]

However just for fun and illustrative purpose (pun intended , this is my wifes kitchen tool drawer with one of the Topaz presets applied as an example.

My first reaction was "Life Magazine, process color, 1973".

Rick "but still a photograph" Denney

[Marko]

There are three significant elements seperating photographs done in the dark room and those illustrations printed with digis:

1) Progress. In terms of capabilities and end use, digital appears to be the cat's pajamas. Cool. There is a market for this stuff. It is a creative outlet for those who enjoy computers. Cool!

2) Fun. In terms of sheer enjoyment, photographing with film in bellows cameras and printing in a darkroom beats electrical gizmos and sitting at a computer and having a machine spurt out inkjets.

I don't know about your idea of fun, but I've been doing film photography since the early '70, with one long pause, and digital for the last six years or so and I can tell you one thing: not having to maintain a dedicated room with its own ventilation and plumbing, not having to wash a bunch of dishes every time, not having to stumble in the dark and not having to mix and handle toxic, stinky chemicals that leave ugly stains on anything they fall on was a true liberation!

And that's even without going into the specifics of the process itself.

Being able to experiment and see the changes as you make them, in real time, knowing that those changes are non-destructive and being able to go back where you were a minute ago at the click of a button, having the kind of control and adjustment capability you could only dream about in the old days... And having the capability to actually show someone who can be either with you in the room or half the way across the world what are you working on right this moment. Now, that's my idea of fun.

But there is a difference! Like "artisanal" bread that comes out of a factory bakery where extraordinary control is achieved through technology assuring the highest quality end product will yield some very tasty pan rustique is different from a loaf of sourdough kneaded with your own hands and baked in your own kitchen that comes out a wee bit black on the bottom.

Which would you prefer?

I'll take the home made bread every time, but if you prefer the high tech loaf, thats your choice. Either way the sandwich will still be a sandwich.

It's all just about preferences. To me, sourdough tastes exactly as it sounds but it's still bread and some people still like it....

Marko

[sanking]

That is also the most important distinguishing characteristic for me of photography, light creates the image, not the hand of the artist. And that could be via film capture, or digital capture, or other forms of capture.

From the earliest days of its history many people have recognized that the thing that makes photograhy different from every other form of visual art is that the point of departure is an object or objects that first existed in nature and were captured by the effect of light on film. The fact that capture is via another mechanism, CMOS sensor for example, is incidental to the the essential nature of the creation or capture of the image.

Everything that is done to the image after its capture is in the realm of artistic and aesthetic decisions. Many believe that the nature of photography is best conveyed with no manipulation and try to work that way. Others believe otherwise and engage in extensive manipulation. These divergent practices have always existed in photography, albeit with tools much less powerful than we have today. Still, it is all photographic art.

Sandy King

It seems to me that what makes a photograph uniquely photographic is that the light itself creates the image, rather than the hand of the artist. There is a lot of handwork required to make the latent image visible, but that handwork may or may not share elements and steps with other forms of art. Yet, those other art forms are not photographs solely because they were not created by the light itself.

[Kirk Gittings]

Very true Sandy.

What gives those digital photos that "illustration" look, is the particular digital processing of the photos (and probably to a degree in some of them, the lighting). You can do alot of things with digital processing, most of which is very easy to go overboard, and alot of people seem to like the 'overboard processing', but it's not for everyone. I think alot of folks like that style *because* it's different.

You could easily get the same/similar results the same by scanning in an 8x10 sheet and "processing" it digitally with the same techniques. It's not the digital capture that gives them the different look, it's how they treat those captures.

Qt (a really great guy by the way) was just at my house comparing my B&W ink prints with my silver prints, some from the same negatives. He may want to chime in here and give his own opinion. But my impression of his impressions was that I had succeeded with ink prints creating a comparable quality (life richness etc.) to my traditional silver. In my opinion, in some cases, I think I have exceeded my silver prints in many ways, because of the amount of micro control I can exercise. My point is (related to the quote above) is it takes a tremendous amount of work to make decent b&w prints digitally. I spend far more time making a decent b&w digital print than I ever did traditionally AND it feels just as personally crafted as my most difficult traditional prints. That much effort could be aimed at creating a very "digitally processed" look in a print or it can be aimed at simply creating a well executed print of traditional print values. You have the freedom to do either, just as AA could do a goofy high contrast blue toned traditional print of Moonrise, but he chose to do a traditional print. Nothing has really changed in the art except the brush. It still takes seeing and craftsmanship.

[Chris Strobel]

Very true Sandy.



Qt (a really great guy by the way) was just at my house comparing my B&W ink prints with my silver prints, some from the same negatives. He may want to chime in here and give his own opinion. But my impression of his impressions was that I had succeeded with ink prints creating a comparable quality (life richness etc.) to my traditional silver. In my opinion, in some cases, I think I have exceeded my silver prints in many ways, because of the amount of micro control I can exercise. My point is (related to the quote above) is it takes a tremendous amount of work to make decent b&w prints digitally. I spend far more time making a decent b&w digital print than I ever did traditionally AND it feels just as personally crafted as my most difficult traditional prints. That much effort could be aimed at creating a very "digitally processed" look in a print or it can be aimed at simply creating a well executed print of traditional print values. You have the freedom to do either, just as AA could do a goofy high contrast blue toned traditional print of Moonrise, but he chose to do a traditional print. Nothing has really changed in the art except the brush. It still takes seeing and craftsmanship.

Kirk, what papers are you using these days for your b&w inkjets?

Thanks!.................Chris

[Kirk Gittings]

Chris, I tend to find something I like and buy large quantities for consistency and use it for awhile. So I am alittle behind on the newest papers. I like Velvet Fine Art and Crane Museo Max and ILFORD GALERIE GOLD FIBRE SILK (very much like traditional silver). Dmax is very important to my aesthetic. I want to start testing some of the new baryta papers.

[Chris Strobel]

Chris, I tend to find something I like and buy large quantities for consistency and use it for awhile. So I am alittle behind on the newest papers. I like Velvet Fine Art and ILFORD GALERIE GOLD FIBRE and ILFORD GALERIE GOLD FIBRE SILK (very much like traditional silver). Dmax is very important to my aesthetic. I want to start testing some of the new baryta papers.

Thanks for the reply Kirk.I've been out of the printing loop for a while.Still have a stash of velvet fine art myself, but need some paper to use up the photo black ink in my 4800.

Chris

[Henry Ambrose]

Once the "myth" of reality or truth that is commonly held about photography is broken, the magic stops.

Its kinda like "the willing suspension of disbelief" in a story. If that's missing then the work becomes merely special effects and craft work or just work. The art is gone. The magic recedes into a place we can't feel anymore.

Maybe its about the myth and maybe the myth is real.

And back to the original post - you do know that Hasselblad is in the business of selling cameras - right? What good would it do to show people that the new Hassy would do the same thing the old Hassys do?

[jnantz]

Once the "myth" of reality or truth that is commonly held about photography is broken, the magic stops.

Its kinda like "the willing suspension of disbelief" in a story. If that's missing then the work becomes merely special effects and craft work or just work. The art is gone. The magic recedes into a place we can't feel anymore.

Maybe its about the myth and maybe the myth is real.

And back to the original post - you do know that Hasselblad is in the business of selling cameras - right? What good would it do to show people that the new Hassy would do the same thing the old Hassys do?

thanks henry

it is kind of like the wizard of oz and the red curtain ...

[cobalt]

Never mind that elf behind the Bavarian landscape... I am the Wizard of... .... ... ...
Photoshop...?