what isnt photography?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I still haven't seen anyone demonstrate a truly substantive difference between digital and analog photography

As long as you beleive the "final product" is what matters you will never "see" it regardless of the arguments presented.

Then there are those of us who beleive that the process is as important to the totality of the print as it is the content, in the same way that a sculptor might choose to create one piece in marble one time and another one in bronce at another time. Choosing the process and material that best fits the piece.

OTOH we can go to the lowest common denominator and say that the term "ink jet print" is the most appropriate for these pieces. That is the action of laying ink on a piece of paper through mechanical means. There is no "writing with light" here in the same way that a photograph still relies on the photochemical process and light to produce an image.

I think it is clear that nothing I or those who beleive like me can say that will make you accept a "substantive difference" that we clearly see, in the same way that nothing that you or those who beleive the "end product" is what matters can say will make me accept this is true.

[Daniel Morgan]

Well I'm glad that some people don't think I am entirely insane.

What is important to recognize is that not everyone who believes that digital photography and traditional photography should be considered different mediums doesn't believe digital photography doesn't have its own artistic merrits.

Sometimes I feel like I get treated as some sort of rascist biggot for my belief that these two photographic forms are seperate mediums and that traditional photography has something that digital doesn't. Often it seems that as a society we are all so defensive about these sort of issues that whenever anybody points out a difference they get ostracized. But digital photography and traditional photography are different mediums just as one race is different from another, both human and of equal value, but each with differences which should be cherished instead of shunned.

[paulr]

Jorge, read the thread. By substantive difference I'm talking about a fundamental quality or limitation that has not existed in analog photography. So far I can think of one truly substantive difference in the digital domain: a digital image can exist disembodied, as an invisible file that can be stored, printed, or viewed in many different ways. I can't think of an analog equivalent to this.

I don't buy that inkjet prints represent a paradigm shift simply because they lay down ink with a mechanical process. The same can be said of photogravure and rotogravure, which are old as the hills and have been considered a part of traditional photography since the beginning. The writing with light definition has always been central to the capturing of the image, but not always to the printing process.

Saying that there's no substantive difference isn't the same thing as saying things look the same or that the end product is the same. I tend to think that all the photographic processes look different from each other; this is why most of them exist. But they share certain innate qualities, which is why we call them all photography. Most of the arguments that digital media are somehow different are based on examples of photographers using digital media to do X or Y or Z. My point is that all of these things have existed for a long time in traditional analog photography, so they are not in fact fundamental differences.

[Daniel Morgan]

Paul,

Just want to thank you for posting everything you have. It is all insightful and very much true.

I think the whole issue here has to do with the digital boom, if any of the old processes were taking over I think that we would be having the same discussion. With that said, I think that the real argument here is about seperating digital from silver gelatin printing. as of right now there are actually many people who consider them to be almost exactly the same, or consider silver gelatin a thing of the past and digital to be the only real tool (This was a lecture I recieved from the Photography prof. at Skidmore College who openly called me a "jerk" for still shooting film and when I asked for his address to send him a thankyou card along with a print for him taking the time to talk to me he told me not to bother because "it wouldn't be any good and he would have to reteach me completely. He then went on to show off his Macs and how he could control each students computer from his.) I think that many traditional photographers simply feel frustrated because the process they love and have worked for years to master is being overshadowed and destroyed by another medium which is considered by many to be an adequate replacement.

[paulr]

"I think that many traditional photographers simply feel frustrated because the process they love and have worked for years to master is being overshadowed and destroyed by another medium which is considered by many to be an adequate replacement."

I'm sure this is true. And it's happened so many times in the history of the medium. Even during the reign of gelatin silver papers, think how many times a great paper would be discontinued, and how many photographers who depended on it would be left to despair? It's really about being at the mercy of manufacturers. Even with the oldest alternative processes, you typically can't do everything yourself ... how many platinum printers make their own paper? We're all the industy's bitch, when you get down to it ...

[Daniel Morgan]

"We're all the industy's bitch, when you get down to it ..."

Unfortunately this is true, but in a way this is also an advantage. We have companies that are always coming up with new medium for us to experiment and make new art with. So I suppose we have to take the bad with the good.

Digital is another one of these, I just don't like the way it works as much. Doesn't have the same spiritual/mystical affect on me that a traditional print has as it emerges from the blank paper.

There are alot of other reasons why I prefer traditional, but I think I already went into them...

[paulr]

"But digital photography and traditional photography are different mediums just as one race is different from another, both human and of equal value, but each with differences which should be cherished instead of shunned."

Well, everything's different from everything else. The question is, where do you draw hard lines, and say these two things are different processes but the same medium, but this thing is a whole different medium? To say something's a whole different medium you need to show a pretty deep difference.

We cast a wide net when we define traditional photography. We tend to include processes as diverse as daguerrotypes, bromoil prints, photogravure, kodachrome, and polaroids. Digital media would have to be pretty different to be more different than all these.

Part of the problem is that we're throwing around this phrase "digital photography" as if it's one, easily defined thing. But what is it? Is it just a picture taken with a digicam and printed inkjet? What about a digitally captured image that's printed to a digital negative and platinum printed? What about an 8x10 conventional negative that's scanned and printed inkjet with quadtone carbon pigment inks? What about a 4x5 neg that's scanned, output as a 16x20 digital neg, and printed on POP? I'm not sure how some ones and zeros thrown into the process automatically transform a photograph into something entirely different.

[Daniel Morgan]

"The question is, where do you draw hard lines, and say these two things are different processes but the same medium, but this thing is a whole different medium? To say something's a whole different medium you need to show a pretty deep difference."

I agree with you here. I am not suggesting that we start refering to it as "digital capture printing" and calling camera manufacturers to demand that they remove the words "camera" and "photography" from all their digital products. I consider cyanotypes a different medium from silver gelatin prints. And I consider all photography as part of the category of art known as Printmaking.

"Part of the problem is that we're throwing around this phrase "digital photography" as if it's one, easily defined thing. But what is it? Is it just a picture taken with a digicam and printed inkjet? What about a digitally captured image that's printed to a digital negative and platinum printed? What about an 8x10 conventional negative that's scanned and printed inkjet with quadtone carbon pigment inks? What about a 4x5 neg that's scanned, output as a 16x20 digital neg, and printed on POP? I'm not sure how some ones and zeros thrown into the process automatically transform a photograph into something entirely different."

This is a complex issue, and clearly there are many hybrids. However, when one thinks about how computers have changed many things we do and our society as a whole I think it is silly not to acknowledge the difference they have on our art. Clearly a computer is much different from the earlier machines used in photography (enlargers, etc.) and this is a significant difference. Even if the final image may look similar. This goes back to the perfect painting we talked about earlier, even if the image is the same the medium and process were different. Paint is paint, silver-gelatin paper is silver-gelatin paper, and a digital file is a digital file. 3 of the same images, but all different.

[Daniel Morgan]

--Clearly a computer is much different from the earlier machines used in photography (enlargers, etc.) and this is a significant difference; even if the final image may look similar.

The fragment was bothering me.

Seeing as it is now 2:45 AM I am going to bed.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, read the thread

I have read the thread Paul, and as I said, no matter what argument is presented you will always find a "reason" not to call it "substantive." This of course is due to the fact that you dont see the process as important, those of us who do see a clear and susbtantive difference.

a digital image can exist disembodied, as an invisible file that can be stored, printed, or viewed in many different ways

There is only one way you can see a digital image, and that is in a monitor. a file is the equivalent of the negative, which can be viewed in many different ways, just like a digital file.

The same can be said of photogravure and rotogravure, which are old as the hills and have been considered a part of traditional photography since the beginning. The writing with light definition has always been central to the capturing of the image, but not always to the printing process.

Oh really! this is news to me, I have always considered photogravure more a printing process than a photographic process, but I am sure you will disagree. If as you say the writing with light definition is only confined to the capturing of the image, then I guess the only true photographers are those shooting transparencies, or the only true digital image is the one you see in the little screen in your camera, after that it is all processed. OTOH even in photogravure you need a photochemical process to create the plate.....not so in digital. IMO the writing with light applies not only to the capture but the impression of that image, but once again I am sure you will disagree, so really this brings me back to my original point, no matter what Daniel or I say, you will disagree. No matter what you say, I and others will disagree. We are jst spinning our wheels here, maybe it would be best to agree to disagree and move on. We have had this discussion 4 or 5 times just in this month already and nothing has changed.