digital vs traditional photography

[Wayne]

When the digital artists get good enough to fabricate photo-realistic images entirely on the computer, what will you say then?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You werent asking me, but I cant resist, beause this is exactly where I was hoping this would lead to. What will happen when that time comes (and its almost here now) is poetic justice-they will be kicking and screaming that their work should not be lumped with those self-proclaimed "photographers" creating their work entirely on computer. In turn it will be pointed out that there really is no signficant difference, one is created by computer beginning with initial input from a lens, and the other with initial input from a keyboard, all the rest will be the same. Paulr will be raging that this IS an extremely "significant" difference, and his pleas will fall on deaf ears. Ironic, huh?

[David Luttmann]

Wayne,

The term "Graphics Artist" and "CAD Artist" have been around for years. Once again, an unrelated issue.

I think I'll take a break from this a take some photographs with my DSLR and print some Carbon Pigment Photos from them.

Cheers,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Wayne is not too far off the truth. In another forum one member was recounting how he entered a photography contest where one of the participants had submitted a "photograph" where he had taken elements from different "photographs" other people had made off the web and then he combined them to make his "print" which he submitted.

So, is this how it works? My fauxtography is better than yours because I used a camera and you did not?!? Why is this not "photography?" After all the "final product is what matters," no?

[Jonathan Brewer]

Everything you just said can make sense, but I suggest to you that the bottom line for all of this is your feeling about the finished work,..................if you enjoy it, it satisfies you, enthralls you, lifts you up to a higher plane/inspires you, then the technique has served its purpose by disappearing and putting you on a plane beyond that technique and even but for a split second, you've enjoyed it however you enjoyed it.

My wife is into Holistic health, many times she's cooked me something I've enjoyed immensely, and when she volunteers the ingredients, on many occoasions, I've told her I don't want to know, that it makes no difference, that way I can enjoy the meal, simply and unfettered without knowing or caring about specific ingredients.

No it's not absurd to not be able to see something in the same light, once you find out something later about it you don't like, but that's more your feelings about this than the work.

This isn't bickering, at least not by me, I question the logic behind what you're saying, so I'll say this.....................despite your issues of craftsmanship/something being 'staged'/fabrication w/regards to digital, this also applies to film, you frame something 'in'(and crop something else out), you catch something or somebody and if you shoot stills you freeze them(is this real?.....is it natural?), you choose an exposure for some reason(instead of another), and of course there are folks who can/will manipulate a wet print until it looks nothing like what was originally shot.

What's burning and dodging, unsharp masking,............................these change things on your negative, so be it, it's abosulutely fine w/me, because in the hands of masters they're necessary tools to be use in the molding of raw clay into their vision of the world, when these tools are used by the 'clumsy' the results can be garish, ditto w/digital only more drastic.

The paradox here is not you having a right to your vision, and your ideal for how art should be crafted together, but the fact that you saw and liked something that didn't look fabricated, staged,..............didn't have any of the criteria which involves what you don't like about digital, and in fact was so well done that you did'nt know it was in fact digital, and you still don't like it.

You have concerns A, B, C, and D, regarding a particular discipline.....................you see a picture you like, A, B, C, and D, are not present in the picture, WHICH IS WHY YOU LIKE IT, so it seems to me that as opposed to you saying I don't prefer this, you're also saying no matter what anybody does now or later, no how good they execute a work, you cannot possibly like it.

So I'll just close my participation w/asking you direct, are you saying there's nobody anywhere who could now or ever, craft together something which happens to involve digital manipulation, you answer notwithstanding, it seems to be a blanket dismissal.

I have no wish for flames and I'm sure you're in earnest, good luck.

[Paddy Quinn]

"In another forum one member was recounting how he entered a photography contest where one of the participants had submitted a "photograph" where he had taken elements from different "photographs" other people had made off the web and then he combined them to make his "print" which he submitted.
So, is this how it works? My fauxtography is better than yours because I used a camera and you did not?!? Why is this not "photography?" After all the "final product is what matters," no?"

Is the objection here to making an image from a number of other photographs and calling it "a photograph"? Or is to to making that image out of someone else's photographs? I'm not quite clear on that.

Apart from the fact that, if done without permission the second work may violate copyright, both forms of this have been done in anaolg photography almost since the day photogrpahy was born (and is done in other media as well - such as Lichtenstein's comic strip work).

And somewhat similarly:

"and what if I found out that instead of merely being processed digitally, it was in fact created entirely on the computer? Then would it be OK? Could I then say that I liked this image, but lost any apAnd preciation for it when I found out that it was never shot with any sort of camera to begin with?"

Personal aesthetics and content aside, lets say, for arguments sake you see these nice traditional toned silver gelatin prints and you think they are wonderful.

http://www.peterfetterman.com/artists/DHO/dho_sm.html

Then you find out how they were made and now you dislike them. The photograph hasn't changed since you first looked at it. Maybe the viwers vision is too rigid?

[Jonathan Brewer]

Yes I see the bottom of you last thread, which answers some of my questions.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Is the objection here to making an image from a number of other photographs and calling it "a photograph"? Or is to to making that image out of someone else's photographs? I'm not quite clear on that.

The objection would be not calling this a "photograph" because it was completely generated in a computer.

When this was proposed by Todd this was one of the responses:

Todd, you know full well that is not what we're talking about. We're looking at reproducing the scene via film or digital. This is a common red herring put forward by the entrenched in conventional output. We are not talking about fabricating a completely fictional image (something that can be done via computer or conventional means) and I think you know that.

So, why is it not photography? After all the "final product is what matters!" Or is it, well it is photography if I use a camera even if I dont use light sensitive materials for reproduction, but if you bypass the camera all together then it is not photography, even though it is printed with ink jet and looks just like an ink jet print made from a scanned negative or digital camera.

We have been told again and again the "final product is what matters," well then, here we have a final product that by passed even the most lenient interpretation of photography, yet it looks like a photograph and it was presented as such.....so all of the sudden a made up photograph is not a photograph anymore, why not?

[David Luttmann]

Jorge,

If you don't see a difference between capturing an image with a camera of any type and drawing an image on a computer (or paper) than I'm at a loss for your comprehension abilities. Are you saying you're not sure of the difference between a painting and a photo? Or a sketch (on computer or paper) and a photo?

What Chris Jordan referred to was simple enough. Capturing an image on film or digital sensor, printing it on silver or inkjet. And as those photographers seem to agree....and the minority here don't.....that in the end, the final image is all that matters. If two images are printed using different methods, and they look the same, then there is no inherent value of one method over the other, and thus the image is all that matters

In the end, I find those that seem to have an almost cult like love of old methods are not open to new opportunities and feel threatened that all their years of darkroom knowledge are now challenged by a new method.

Like I have said......I don't care which printing method you use. I know for my color work, nothing matches the output I obtain from either Lightjet or inkjet. And the B&W results I obtain from inkjet are a good match for silver....without the problems of silver reproduction.

Use whatever you like. I use what works for me and what my clients enjoy. When they marvel at the fantasitic color and detail in a beautiful image, I don't really care what a few people thumping their silver or pt/pd bibles think.

I'll leave the last word to Jorge. He always seems to need it!

[Melchi M. Michel]

Dave,

A camera of any type? really? If so, why restrict yourself to film and ccd's. How about an image that was traced on a camera lucida using a [computer] stylus, or one that has been traced using the projected image of a camera obscura.

If this is the case, i'd like to say that I really admire some of Vermeer's later photographs.

[Paddy Quinn]

"The objection would be not calling this a "photograph" because it was completely generated in a computer."

Repetative tautologies aside, there is already a history of photographic objects created either "entirely" in the darkroom or on the drawing board and a terminology to describe them:

Is Marianne Brandt's classic work, for example, a photograph or a photo-montage?

http://w4.bauhaus.de/aktuelles/aktuelles_bilder/tempo_tempo_me.jpg

[BTW, applying the "final print is what matters" - or its converse - blindly across every category and classification of photography as a mantra (which runs the gamut from snapshots, to evidence and medical photography, to photojournalism to fine art to calendar art to photograms and photo-montage and photo-collage is a little like blindly applying photojournalisic ethics to Robert Frank's creations and saying they aren't really photographs because he didn't maintain absolute independant objectivity in producing them. It's meaningless]