Is photographic integrity dead?

[rdenney]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

I believe percepts just won the thread.

[theBDT]

I believe percepts just won the thread.

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

[Kirk Gittings]

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]

"...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]

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