digital vs traditional photography

[Ellis Vener]

The source of this contreps is the print. How it is made.

People like Jorge G. (I don't want to mangle the spelling of your name) rightfully are proud of the immense amount of hand work put into making an individual print -One result is that no two prints are exactly the same. And do not like the technical / mechanical separation between the maker's hands and the final product. they also decry the production line making of identical prints once you have the 'digital negative tuned the way you want it to appear. I think that this principled stand is well ground in traditional artisanal craft. there is also the fact that you can always hold the original image -- negative or transparency --in your hands. This too has great intellectual as well as emotional weight. And you always are aware that a person is completely responsible for the fragile piece of paper you are looking at.

Those who like digital work often base their claim on the finer degree of control over the process -- the ability to tune small areas in the image that will be printed in ways that 'wet darkroom' advocates cannot. They see it as a logical end of "Zone System" type thinking about getting the image printed in a way that blends the emotional and intellectual impulse of the photographer with a high degree of technological control. my belief is that these people more strongly value the content of the image over how he final print is made.

In the end both camps are right -- but have chosen different paths.

perhaps the ultimate in photographic imaging and print making will be a type of enlarger that allows the photographer to work from a digital image yet print it using traditional methods of enlarger, maybe dodging and burning tools and chemical developers on silver halide or platinum-palladium papers.

[Brian C. Miller]

I've always thought that a great Photoshop plugin would be to create a transparency mask with different grey densities and colors for variable contrast paper. It would compare image A with image B, calculate the differences, then print out an appropriate mask. Use the mask with your normal enlarger setup, and get an excellent print with less chance of error.

[Eric Leppanen]

Here is one type of "digital enlarger" for B&W:

www.khbphotografix.com/devere/Current/504DS.htm (http://www.khbphotografix.com/devere/Current/504DS.htm)

www.micropubnews.com/archive/index.asp?action=details&magarticle_id=1812 (http://www.micropubnews.com/archive/index.asp?action=details&magarticle_id=1812)

www.bestlab.com/sanmig14.html (http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig14.html)

www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0071Hf (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0071Hf)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ellis, there is already an enlarger that forms a digital image on a LCD screen which then can be projected onto silver paper. I dont recall the name exactly, I want to say is a Durst but I am not sure. Some people are working on enlarging onto Azo and I know for sure there is a Durst head than can project into pt/pd, thing is, with exception of the azo experiments, these enlargers are in the tens of thousands of dollars.

I will only disagree with you in the sense that I beleive just as strongly in the content of a photograph as those using ink jet, where I diverge from them is in beleiving that the process is also part of the content. I do pt/pd because I feel it gives the viewer not only a "message" or something to admire, but also a tactile and spatial quality not present in other processes. Brooks Jensen in Lensworks says we should learn to see in 2 dimensions, I disagree with him. I think we should strive to give our photographs depth and in fact make it look like a little window. I am lucky that I have been able to acheive this, more than people telling my prints are beautiful they comment how they "feel" like they can touch the rocks, or that they are looking through a window. I have met my goal, and this is only because of the process I chose, I could not do this with silver and rarely (with few exceptions) have I seen it acheived by others.

IMO we should strive to go beyond making pretty photographs, they should have depth, they should transport the viewer and make him/her like they are where you were taking the pictures. IOW, the photographs should be "hypnotic" and draw the viewer into them. IMO saying that content is all that matters without taking into account how the process affects the content is an easy way out, and a fallacy that I cannot do anything PS does. Yes it would take me more time, but I can have just as much control over every inch of the print as does anybody using PS, I am just not conviced such degree of control is necessary and that it is the basis of the extraordinary content many mention.

In any case, I guess you are posting this in an effort to "make peace" and as such I think RichSBV said it best, in the end who cares if we disagree? Someone calling me a Luddite does not affect the quality of my photography.

[Wilbur Wong]

I hope I am not out of place, but a month or so ago, I was with a group of large format photographers who had an opportunity to see a prototype enlarger at Jensen Optical. Built over a Durst 10 x 10 chassis, it projects a color digital image to photographic chemically process paper. We were all very impressed with the prints produced by this system.

You can dodge and burn and everything else in photoshop and then print out directly without creating a (inter)negative.

[Brian C. Miller]

Actually, a cheap digital printer could be produced which would wipe a laser over photographic paper to produce the image. Then the paper is developed normally.

Years ago I was told by one of my profs that its easy to digitally control a mirror, bounce a laser off of it, and produce a TV image from it. Same thing should apply to a paper printer.

Hmm, stepper motor to feed the paper, laser, voice coil-mirror assembly, supporting circuitry.....

(insert Jaws theme here)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I met a guy who wanted to put pt/pd solution in ink jet cartridges and then print the picture just like an ink jet print, all he would have to do then is expose to UV light and develop. I never knew what happened with his idea......

[Will Strain]

jorge - so would the image be based on the amount/density of solution, rather than the amount of exposure (as normally controlled by the negative).

Odd. Interesting if it can work.

--

Always food for thought Ellis. I'm in a hybrid workflow of my own, in that prints are digital, but are mounted and ebedded in an encaustic type of finish which requires a huge amount of hand work. And indeed, each is very much original and unreproducible.

But the final product is arguably not even really a photograph anymore, perhaps an assemblage or summat.

Anyhow, happy thoughts before bedtime.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

jorge - so would the image be based on the amount/density of solution, rather than the amount of exposure (as normally controlled by the negative).

That was the idea, I thought it was interesting too...but never heard from the guy again. I guess he did not know I was a Luddite and thought I might steal his idea... :-)

[paulr]

The first people I knew who had a part-digital workflow were doing this, but with contact prints. Basically making enlarged digital copynegs, In most cases it required a lot of frustrating back and forth with confused service bureaus, but in the end the results were usually really nice.

[robert_4927]

Luddite, great word Jorge. I guess I would have to pin that label to myself also

[phil sweeney]

<html>
check_this_link (http://www.benboardman.com.au/bb/devere/dv504d.shtml)
<html>

[Ellis Vener]

Okay so we have established that there are digital enlargers.

Jorge,

I have no interest in brokering peace deals. I was merely expressing my thinking as to why partisans on both sides of the debate might think and how that motivates their actions on this forum.

[bob carnie]

Hi Ellis
the time is now , I am now putting traditonal photographic paper in a Lambda lazer exposing unit and exposing the paper from digital files worked on in PS or straight from Phase backs, then processing the paper in traditional methods. I am currently using fibre base paper(agfa classic) cibachrome(cps) and any of the RA4(chrstal archive,endura , metal).
The * Deveere unit* mentioned is a LED device that fits on a 4x5 deveere enlarger and creates an virtual projected negative from a digital file. I cannot explain how this unit works, but it differs from a Lambda unit as the lazers of the lambda are fixed to a common point and the paper moves at either 24inches per minute (200dpi) or 12 inches per minute(400dpi).I have been using this tecchnology for 2 1/2 years now with the different materials with great success. The next step is to put large roll film in the Lambda and image to large format neg images from digital files. The end usage will be negatives for Platinumn, Van Dyke, Cyanotype Carbon . I have contacted some leading workers in these different fields to test out this method once I have a little more time getting use to the Lambda. Currently my size limitation for all prints are 30inchesx 96inches. The largest print I have made to date was a 30x80 cibachrome from an imaged scanned from transparancy.( I have figured a way on how to make 30x40inch film, it is just a matter of time , money and effort.
I continue to print traditionally and enjoy both working methods . As my skill level comes from the traditional side , I have found it necessary to collaborate with younger Mac technicians to get the quality of print that I would expect from a wet darkroom session.

[Bruce Watson]

Ellis,

Two things strike me about your thread:

1) you always are aware that a person is completely responsible for the fragile piece of paper you are looking at. What - you think that I'm not completely responsible for the prints I make? Did you design and build your enlarger by hand then? Make your own enlarging lens starting from quartz sand did you? You didn't make your equipment, and I didn't make mine. But we are both "completely responsible for the fragile piece of paper you are looking at." This is a lapse of logic that is completely unexpected from you, Ellis. I'd have understood it coming from some others. But not you.

2) my belief is that these people more strongly value the content of the image over how he final print is made. "These people?" Give me a break. As to the rest of it, I value how my print is made as much as Jorge does. I think my method is better; that's why I use it.

Neither side of this debate is going to convince the other. Not gonna happen. You'll have better luck trying to convert people to your religion maybe.

So let's give it a rest. Live and let live. I'll start - for the forseeable future, I'm done with these threads.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think my method is better; that's why I use it.

Better in what way?.....see, this is the kind of claims that dont make sense and why these threads always become a shit fest. Your method certainly does not result in a better "final product" that is supposed to be the "only" thing that matters.

[Ellis Vener]

I think my method is better; that's why I use it.



Better in what way?

Better for him, better for the way he works. Not a universal better, an idividual specific better. just as your way of working is better for you and the way yu choose to work.

[Mark_3899]

Jorge,
I just have to say this.

> Your method certainly does not result in a better "final product" that is supposed to be the "only" thing that matters.<

Please what you wrote. I hope you understand the word subjective.

[Ralph Barker]

I agree that neither side of the digital/analog debate will ever convince the other side to switch. It all boils down to different personal preferences, IMO. I must say, though, that I kinda like the idea that no two hand-made prints will ever be precisely the same.

But, we should also remember that in 40 years, today's digital technology will likely be considered "traditional" and that eventually two-dimensional, non-interactive paper-based images will be considered boring. ;-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Better for him, better for the way he works. Not a universal better, an idividual specific better. just as your way of working is better for you and the way yu choose to work.

How do you know this is what he meant Ellis? How do you know Bruce did not mean exactly what he wrote? Bruce did no qualify his statement so that you can assume he wrote one thing and meant another. Bruce did not write "for my taste," "for the way I work and the way I like my prints...." He made a blanket statement and neither you nor Mark have any grounds to interpret it different, that is unless you can read his mind.

I really wish that more people in this forum would learn from Brian Ellis. Here is a guy who was an accomplished silver printer who decided to change over to ink jet printing. His reason? In his own words "I like my prints better." Nobody, but nobody can argue with that. But these are not the premises you started with this post Ellis, IMO you actually did a disservice to both camps. On one hand you are implying those of us doing classic processes could not care less what is in the picture but that the picture is good as long as it is done in silver, pt/pd, carbon, etc, etc.... clearly a foolish position. On the other hand you imply that those doing ink jet have more control and that this control autmagically translates into better prints.....this too IMO is a foolish position.

Since as you put it Ellis, your intention was not to "broker" peace so that if we cannot come to an agreement at least we can all agree to disagree, then I can only conclude the purpose of this thread was to troll and to once again bait us into another shit slinging fest. If this is the case, then this thread is a waste of time, and I agree with Bruce, we have beaten this putrefact horse enough.

[David Luttmann]

Maybe Bruce wants to be able to get a 24x30 print from a 4x5 neg....something that can't be done as a contact using pt/pd printing. For that, Bruce's method is better. Ditto for a color printing. Everyone will use what works best for themselves and fits their vision.

[Ellis Vener]

if there is "shit slinging" in this thread it was introduced by people other than me. My intent in starting this threadwas definitely not to start yet another worn out flame war. if has become that then the people igniting those flames are the ones responsible for their own behavior.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Maybe Bruce wants to be able to get a 24x30 print from a 4x5 neg....something that can't be done as a contact using pt/pd printing

As the lawyers say, facts not in evidence. Since you started you sentence with "maybe" I can only conclude you are guessing this is what he meant. But as I said, this is not what he wrote. The first thing one learns in science is that what you read is what is meant, we should not add, substract, or speculate as to different meanings.

BTW You can make pt/pd prints in 24x30, it is actually not very difficult but it is expensive.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

My intent in starting this threadwas definitely not to start yet another worn out flame war.

So then, what is your intent with starting this thread? You conclude your post with:

In the end both camps are right -- but have chosen different paths.

I took this to mean that your intent was to at least propose a "cease fire" and agree to disagree. I made the same mistake you and DL made, I attributed a meaning to this sentence that was not there. So now that you have clarified your intent was not to "broker" peace, then I am not clear what was your intent if not to incite another flame war.

[Ellis Vener]

I took this to mean that your intent was to at least propose a "cease
fire"

You are responsible for your own misapprehensions and misunderstandings, Jorge.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You are right Ellis and I wrote so, but it seems you are reluctant to tell us your intent therefore I can only conclude it was only to create another flame war, and as Bruce said this thread is a waste of time. In the end, as you say it is my fault for trying to take you seriously....a mistake I wont repeat.

[David Luttmann]

How about color Jorge? I notice you decided to leave that out.....on purpose maybe? Or maybe 40x50. As you can see, the beloved pt/pd printing has a limited niche use. MAYBE Bruce doesn't want that ;-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Nope, I have no idea what Bruce's preference is, and neither do you. You are only guessing and reflecting your preferences, and of course trying to once bait me into arguing with you. Cant you understand I have little regard for your opinions? Why is it you keep reading my posts and addressing me personally when you know I find your arguments worthless in the face that after 15 years of "professional" photography and actually processing digital images you cannot post even a single photograph so that we can judge if you really know what you are talking about or are just only talk.

Hell, even if I disagree and dislike Butzi or I disagree with Ellis ( I dont know why but I think Ellis is all right, just misguided... :-) ) I can respect them because they can show work to back up their words. In contrast here you are pretending you know what you are talking about, but last time I requested you post a picture you had to go look to see if you had one you could post....what the hell is that? Is this the best you can do after 15 years? ;-)

Since you cannot show proof that what you say is not just the fantasies of a wannabe, I think I have wasted enough time with you.

[paulr]

hmmmm. this "digital vs. traditional photography" thead isn't working out so well. I think I'll start one called "traditional vs. digital photography" and see if it goes better. i'm actually feeling lucky ...

[David Luttmann]

Give that a try Paulr. Just make sure you post a picture for Jorge....otherwise nothing you say could possibly be correct or have any validity ;-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

hmmmm. this "digital vs. traditional photography" thead isn't working out so well. I think I'll start one called "traditional vs. digital photography" and see if it goes better. i'm actually feeling lucky ...

LOL, I think you have a better chance of finding a winning lotery ticket on the sidewalk Paul, but knock yourself out.... :-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

No need for a picture Paul, with some people knowledge is evident..... ;-)

[David Vickery]

Hello,

A lot of you seem to be ignoring a significant point-on purpose I would presume. This point is that a PT/PD print or a traditional carbon print, bromoil or etc. is unlike anything else that can be made. Just as an image executed in tempura is very different than one executed in oil, or watercolor, or graphite, or etc.

I guess that one of the problems with photography is that some of the different processes/materials can be used in ways that makes them look very similar. And many of us just assume that they are all the same or nearly so and that that is the goal. This is too bad; in the rest of the art world a painter working with oil doesn't try to make it look like a watercolor painting.

To say that the content of the image is all that maters, and not what process is used to get to the image is just plain wrong. Otherwise no artist would still be using tempura, or oil- all painters would only be using the latest acrylic. All musicians would only be using the latest electronic equipment to make music.

In my experience, a silver print (or a modern digital print) does not look like a PT/PD print. They are very different and that is the point.

[Keith Laban]

The medium is not the message.

Is it any wonder that the debate on 'photography as art' persists when craft and process are held in such high esteem by photographers?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The medium is not the message.

But it is part of the message. The "message" is intimately linked to the way it is presented.

Then again why bother with craft, I can fix it later with PS....no? I guess this is where the "I have more control" part comes from.

[David Vickery]

The message is a product of the medium and the medium is a part of the message!

Why didn't Michelangelo use limestone instead of marble to make his "David"? Limestone was certainly available to him, much cheaper and can be used to make sculpture. But would "David" look the same--No!

Why do many classical musicians use period instruments?

Further, I would say that "craft" is one of the most important goals to be reached by any artist working in any medium. And this lack of Craftsmanship is one of the big problems with post-modern art in general, and many photographers in particular--IMHO. I would bet that Picasso, Adams, Weston, Marin, Stieglitz, Cunningham, Gilpin, Sheeler, Monet, etc. etc. would all have considered themselves to be Craftsmen/Craftswomen. And that that would be the goal to strive for regardless of the chosen medium-otherwise, your message will fail.

But I agree that many photographers do spend a lot of time arguing about which process is “best” when we all should just be trying to achieve Craftsmanship with whatever we choose to use. And then be open minded enough to take a close look at what others have produced and decide if that is the process that we would rather use.

[Paul Butzi]

Then again why bother with craft, I can fix it later with PS....no? I guess this is where the "I have more control" part comes from.

I know this is the conventional wisdom about digital printing, but although I had really tried to sit this whole discussion out, I have to disagree.

I printed conventionally for years - not pt/pd as Jorge does, but enlarging onto both graded and VC papers. I usually made prints in sizes between 11x14 and 16x20. When I switched to digital printing, I found it MORE demanding of craft than making relatively small (well, normal sized by gelatin silver standards) prints.

To get the best results, I've reevaluated film/developer combinations. Some combos which silver print nicely (because they offer beautiful tonal distributions at the cost of a loss in sharpness or increased grain) just don't do well when scanned. On the other hand, some combos which don't look great on silver prints scan very well, and the tonal distribution can be worked out digitally when printing. I'm reevaluating what the best development is - is there an optimum negative density range for scanning, and if so, what is it?

In addition, I've just found that my camera technique was inadequate for the task of making 40" x 50" prints. I was just too sloppy - because most errors were hidden by the relatively small print size.

It's true that some problems are easily patched up via photoshop. Got a dust spot on the negative? Just use the healing brush, and bingo - that sucker is GONE.

But if you think that you're going to go out and photograph in crappy light, and fix it in photoshop I can tell you it isn't going to happen. If your composition is just rotten, you're not going to fix that digitally. If your exposure is bad, you can do some things digitally to dig out every last detail, but it's not the same as getting it right from start, and if you are making large prints, those little differences really show. If you didn't focus properly, you can sharpen it up some but you can't actually fix it so it looks the way it would if you had just focussed properly.

When digital printers talk about 'more control', I think that in general what they're referring to is the ability to adjust very small regions of the print and to adjust large numbers of such small areas. Working digitally, I can adjust a much smaller area than I can when silver printing, especially burning (dodging small areas can sometimes be done by bleaching). But the number of adjustments made can be large, because you make them once and then they appear in every print, as opposed to having to make them to every print you make. Tonal control when printing digitally is incredible. It makes using VC paper look limiting, and I was a big fan of the expressive flexiblity of VC paper (and, in fact, still am).

All that flexibility comes with a price tag. Just as all those new abilities make it possible to make better prints (and by better, I mean more expressive), they also make it possible to make really crappy prints in a million new ways. When making silver prints, it's possible to make what my family euphemistically calls a "Brave Artistic Choice" and do something which is just a bad idea. If you thought you'd exhausted the possible range of Brave Artistic Choices with silver printing, I can tell you that if you switch to digital printing, you can expect to explore entire new worlds of Brave Artistic Choices before you get the sense of what you're doing.

The bottom line here is that if you think that switching to digital printing is going to let you get away with inferior camera craft, I can tell you you're going to be tremendously disappointed if you make the switch.

And if you think that you're going to go out, buy a scanner, a computer, an inkjet printer, and Photoshop and it will magically transform you from Joe Nobody, unskilled gelatin silver printer, into the digital equivalent of a Paul Caponigro or Michael Kenna or John Sexton, you're likewise in for a big disappointment.

[Keith Laban]

Mastering craft, technique, equipment and process is but a flea bite on the arse of the image.

[Wayne]

But if you think that you're going to go out and photograph in crappy light, and fix it in photoshop I can tell you it isn't going to happen. If your composition is just rotten, you're not going to fix that digitally. If your exposure is bad, you can do some things digitally to dig out every last detail, but it's not the same as getting it right from start, and if you are making large prints, those little differences really show. If you didn't focus properly, you can sharpen it up some but you can't actually fix it so it looks the way it would if you had just focussed properly.



Perhaps this is true today, but how quickly is it improving. Come back in ...I dont know, how many years do you think it will be? 5? 15? 20, tops? and you WILL be able to do all those things, and so you will be able to get away with inferior camera craft. Its inevitable. I have a friend who is a graphic artist and I have seen him do things on his computer in 5 seconds that make me question whether you cant already do some of these things, like fix composition. He is a fine, skilled artist, but he aint no photographer.

[David Vickery]

"Mastering craft, technique, equipment and process is but a flea bite on the arse of the image."

That flee bite is the only pathway to consistently producing compelling images.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Mastering craft, technique, equipment and process is but a flea bite on the arse of the image.

Spoken like a true fauxtographer..........

[Brian C. Miller]

"Mastering craft, technique, equipment and process is but a flea bite on the arse of the image."

And that flea weights 440 pounds, has jaws of steel, red glowing eyes, jumps farther and faster than Superman, and a real thirst for your blood! :-)

[Steve J Murray]

I agree with Paul's statement 100%.

Digital won't make a great photographer out of a crappy one!

I know I can make good prints using any technique as long as I master the tools. I used to make great silver prints and I can make great prints using digital methods now that I've learned enough of the technology. I don't think one is better than the other. I use a 4x5 and a DSLR depending on what I'm shooting, for instance. For spontaneous natural light photos of people, the DSLR can't be beat. For landscape, LF can't be beat (yet). How you choose to print your photographs is just a matter of personal choice, like choosing the type of paint for a painting.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Digital won't make a great photographer out of a crappy one!

Isnt this true for just about anyhting we talk about here? pt/pd printing wont make a great photographer out of a crappy one, neither will carbon, Kallitype, silver printing etc, etc.

This is what I dont get, even the most ignorant person about digital printing (like me) knows that you can dodge, burn, bleach, unsharp mask pixel by pixel if you guys wanted to. But is this control really necessary or just overkill, or maybe OCD? Frankly for me this is one of the tell tales of digital photography or more precise ink jet prints. You look at a print and there is this naked tree that looks to be a mile away with branches siluetted against a background and you know it should not have any detail no normal person could see detail, yet invariably with ink jet prints the tree has detail in the branches and trunk. It is almost as if you guys are saying to yourselves, you know the detail is in the scan and by god I am going to work on these tiny branches for 6 hours so I can bring the detail in the print because I can. Not only do I find this degree of control foolish, but IMO once the print is finished it looks artificial.

Another example, look at this image:

www.afterimagegallery.com/barkerwalkingrain.htm (http://www.afterimagegallery.com/barkerwalkingrain.htm)

What do you see? I will tell you what I see. I see an oncoming storm where all of the sunflowers by the road are perfectly still with exception of one or two (which I am sure the guy probably missed working on them with PS.) To me this looks unnatural. If this is the result of greater control, then I am not so sure it is such a good thing.
(BTW, this is not to say the guy cannot do some great shots, this is my favorite www.afterimagegallery.com/barkeradoberuin.htm (http://www.afterimagegallery.com/barkeradoberuin.htm) )

Within this thread you will see that those of use who have chosen classic methods agree uniformly that in addition to making photographs with great content, the process, mastering the technique, learning the craft are also important. In contrast we have Butzi telling us how he had to improve his technique and then just below him we have a guy telling us technique, mastering the craft, etc are worthless......I guess for him all that was necessary was to learn how to be really good with Photoshop. So who is right on this one? Am I to conclude that the "the image is all that matters" is just a red herring to hide the fact that if you become a really good graphic artist with PS you dont really need to master the craft and techniques of photography? You guys are the ones doing ink jet printing, how come within your same "camp" you have one guy telling us how much more demanding digital is, and another telling us, nah, dont worry be happy, just learn PS?

[paulr]

Why would you expect people to agree with each other just because they happen to use similar tools? When I've offered my ideas they were just that ... my ideas. Not official manifestos of a great conspiracy. Personally, I have found the learning curve of photoshop to have a lot in common with the learning curve of the darkroom. In both there are an almost infinite number of ways to make an image look like crap. The real skill in either (as if this needs to be said) is in making an image look good. And the real artistry is identical: deciding just what the values should be, regardless of what hoops you have to jump through to get it there.

All these crappy looking inkjet prints you see sound to me like evidence that it's not exactly easy making beautiful ones.

How much does technique matter? I think that's a personal question (which might explain all the constant fistfights on the isssue). Some people choose a medium specifically because they like the process that it involves. A lot of potters wouldn't be potters if they didn't get to get their hands dirty. For these people technique is primary. For others the vision is primary, and technique is just whatever you have to do to make it happen. And for a lot of people it's somwhere in between. It gets silly to place value judgements on this ... for every great photographer who cared deeply about the process, you can find one who couldn't care less. Personally, I care, but I don't expect my audience to care. Usually they're only interested in the image. The process is my problem, and my pleasure.

[Brian C. Miller]

Sheesh, Jorge, I just gotta disagree with you about those sunflowers! While those prints are made with inkjet, I didn't see any information about the camera Kent Barker used. Meter Gallery says he processes and prints his own work, but the capture format may be analog, not digital. Maybe he even used a large format camera! Just maybe he did....

As for branches visible a mile away, I've emperically demonstrated beyond my satisfaction that my Graflex Super Graphic with its original Optar 135mm lens and Techpan can pull up minute twigs over three blocks away. What's that? A quarter mile? Dunno, but its just too impressive for me to dismiss that better cameras could do the same feat, and then that film could be scanned in with a drum scanner.

I think that the frozen sunflowers just weren't moving that fast. Or maybe the wind lulled for a moment. Or maybe that was one of thirty other negatives Mr. Barker made at that time.

But as for editing each flower into perfection, and leaving some blurred from movement? I don't think so.

[GPS]

The sunflowers picture is not necessarily an oncoming storm. Meterologically it's a nimbostratus cum virgo - the dark lines is precipitation that evaporates in the air before reaching the earth. It doesn't mean any strong winds at all - that's why the sunflowers don't need to move. As for the rest of the discussion - I don't care about it at all.

[Keith Laban]

"and then just below him we have a guy telling us technique, mastering the craft, etc are worthless. I guess for him all that was necessary was to learn how to be really good with Photoshop"

Not what I said at all. Mastering craft, technique, equipment and process is the easy bit that anyone can learn regardless of whether they are in the darkroom or at a computer.

"That flee bite is the only pathway to consistently producing compelling images"

Compelling images are not created by cameras or processes, they are created by people.

"Spoken like a true fauxtographer"

Please expand.

[David Vickery]

I apologize in advance for continuing this.

Keith, above you have stated ""images are not created by cameras or processes, they are created by people"". Yet on your own website you refer to the film that was used to make the prints that you sell not as yours but as ""Hasselblad transparencies"". Is this just a marketing ploy or did Hasselblad really make those images?

Also above you have stated "" Is it any wonder that the debate on 'photography as art' persists when craft and process are held in such high esteem by photographers?"" yet again on your own website you seperate yourself as a photographer from artists ""My background as an artist has inevitably influenced my photographic work This has not always been a conscious process
but in recent years I have started to explore the boundaries between the two disciplines"" .
As I have tried to state in my previous posts, one of the primary points of becoming a craftsman in any media, whether its any of the various photograhic arts, woodworking, oil painting, organ building, etc. is to become an artist--as labelled by society, not by oneself.

Also, ""Compelling images are not created by cameras or processes, they are created by people."" People and Hasseleblads cannot create images with air, they must use some process, usually and preferrably, with some amount of craftsmanship. For you, it is clearly Photoshop and Hasselblads.

[David Vickery]

I meant to ad that, from what I can tell of them on my screen,I do like your watercolors, Keith.

[paulr]

David, I think it's a question of emphasis.

I don't think anyone is denying that finely crafted things are nice, or that craft plays a significant part in the nature of an art object. The question is, what's more important--the craft, or the vision that's being brought into light through the craft?

Ironically, it was the invention of photography, and later its acceptance as a fine art medium, that shifted the world's sense of artistic value away from from craft and towards vision. There used to be a lot of confusion in the worlds of painting and illustration over what made a painting excellent--what it the realistic depiction of nature, done through painstaking craftsmanship, or something less obvious? When photography came along and showed that a machine could render detail and perspective with superhuman competence, the art world was left looking for artistic value elsewhere. Hence the shift in painting toward non-representational modernism of the"my kid could do that!" variety, and the shift in photography away from labor-encumburred, wannabe paintings, like the hand-colored, hand-varnished bromoil-on-platinum prints done by martyrs like Steichen.

None of this is to say that craftsmanship doesn't matter--but rather that is the vehicle for artistic worth and not the source of it. A finely crafted turd is still a turd. Likewise a print made sloppily on torn newsprint could be great art, if that expression happens to serve the vision well.

[Paul Butzi]

"Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wicker-work picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art."

-Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending a Staircase

[Keith Laban]

"Keith, above you have stated ""images are not created by cameras or processes, they are created by people"". Yet on your own website you refer to the film that was used to make the prints that you sell not as yours but as ""Hasselblad transparencies"

Hmmm, splitting hairs comes to mind. The images were captured with a Hasselblad but created by me.

"As I have tried to state in my previous posts, one of the primary points of becoming a craftsman in any media, whether its any of the various photograhic arts, woodworking, oil painting, organ building, etc. is to become an artist--as labelled by society, not by oneself"

I have been earning my living as an artist for 35+ years. This is not a in any way a judgement, merely a job description.

" Also above you have stated "" Is it any wonder that the debate on 'photography as art' persists when craft and process are held in such high esteem by photographers?"" yet again on your own website you seperate yourself as a photographer from artists ""My background as an artist has inevitably influenced my photographic work This has not always been a conscious process but in recent years I have started to explore the boundaries between the two disciplines"

You have missed the entire point of my "Found Paintings" series. Far from separating myself as an artist and photographer I am exploring the commonality.

"Also, ""Compelling images are not created by cameras or processes, they are created by people."" People and Hasseleblads cannot create images with air, they must use some process, usually and preferrably, with some amount of craftsmanship. For you, it is clearly Photoshop and Hasselblads"

I'll say it again, Hasselblads do not create images they capture them using the medium of film. You seem to be making alarming assumptions about my work. As I've said I have been making images for a living for the last 35 years and 32 of those years without the use of Photoshop. Now that I'm printing digitally and supplying digital files I find that I need to correct scans to the original transparency. What else should I use? PS is merely a tool.

[Keith Laban]

David, sorry, I meant to add that I'm pleased you liked the watercolours ;-)

[Todd Schoenbaum]

I am sure to invite hell for this but...

In my opinion the duality of "craftmanship" and "vision" cannot be placed into either of the implied competitions:

- the which one matters (all of nothing) competition
or
- the nomimal (rank each on a scale of one to ten) competition



For me, craftmanship must be present before I even consider vision. The vision is ultimately what matters most, but there can be no vision without craftmanship.



I print traditionally, this is what I enjoy (both for my own work and in the work of others). If I see an image that I like, and later find out that it was done digitally, I can no longer appricieate the image. This may not be a likable position, but it is honest. I dont like art and computers mixing (...but, but, computers were used to design your lenses, enlarger, new emulsions...) in the artist side of production. Computers are great tools, but they have no place in the toolbox of the artist (note that the above examples would be made by engineers and chemists, not artists).

When I buy a hand crafted sculpture or painting or photograph, part of what I am buying is the artist, or the idea I have of the artist. And I dont like artists sitting behind monitors, computer-craftmanship or not. I dont want my beautiful sculpture designed in CAD and I dont want my paintings and photographs done in PS. I want sculptures done with stone and chisel, paintings done with a brush, and prints done in the darkroom. If you like making "beautiful" images on the the computer, go work for Nintendo.

Todd Schoenbaum
Celluloid and Silver (http://www.celluloidandsilver.com)

[David Luttmann]

"If I see an image that I like, and later find out that it was done digitally, I can no longer appricieate the image."

Oh brother, here we go again.......

[Jonathan Brewer]

You run into the most beautiful woman that ever lived, she also gives you the hottest, the most passionate and satisfying sex you ever had, does that mean you mean you get rid of her because you find out she wears a wig?

I prefer film to digital backs and digital cameras, but it makes no difference how it was made if you decide you like something, in fact I've disliked some work because it looked digital and that drew more attention to itself than the content of the work, the fact that you like something before you knew what went into the making of it, means it was good enough to overcome/win you over, despite being executed with tools you don't like.

How can you backtrack and unlike something? Isn't this really a matter of despite you not prefering digital, somebody getting over on you with a digital image and you're not willing to admit it?

[David Luttmann]

".....and you're not willing to admit it?"

I would say that is precisely it! I hear this a lot. It's almost like saying no matter how good it looks.....even better than conventional processing......I won't like it because I know there was a computer involved in there somewhere.

What rubbish!

[Wayne]

Why cant people like what they choose to like and dislike what they choose to dislike, for whatever reasons?

I'll tell you whats rubbish-telling someone else what they have to like.

[David Luttmann]

Learn to read Wayne. I never said he had to like it. He already said he likes it....he just denies it when he finds out its digital. That is nothing but foolishness.

[chris jordan]

Hi guys, I thought it might be appropriate for me to finally weigh in with a perspective that some of you might not have. I just returned from Santa Fe, where I was attending an event involving 100 photographic artists selected from around the country, and about 50 art museum curators, book publishers, critics, gallerists and collectors from all over the US. Some of the most important names in the photographic art world were there. We met in groups of various sizes over several days and discussed a wide range of issues that pertain to the making and selling of photogaphic art.

Virtually all of the color prints presented were made digitally (I counted at least seven different color digital process), and many of the images were recorded with digital cameras. There were digital black & white prints, as well as a very small number of traditional darkroom prints, and a whole host of interesting hybrids including darkroom prints from digital negatives, bromoil prints made from digital camera exposures, and the like.

The attention of the photographers and the reviewers focussed on the substance and relevance and originality of the images, and only secondarily on the quality of the prints--which was judged by how the prints looked and not how they were made. The abstract questions of whether digitally-made photographs are more or less valuable than traditional photographs, or more or less artistic or creative or expressive, were not raised even once by anyone there. I think any argument about these issues would have seemed short-sighted and kind of silly in the presence of the brilliantly creative and beautiful work being presented there.

My point here is that these arguments that you guys keep making over and over again here about digital versus traditional photography are irrelevant to the rest of the fine-art photographic world. The important artists, museums, critics, galleries, and private and public collectors have already weighed in over the last few years, and have determined virtually unanimously that digital photographic processes have just as much merit and value as any other photographic process, and that the expressive value of photography lies with the message, not the medium.

So you guys can keep on getting involved in this same fight again and again, but in doing so you are missing a bigger point, which is about supporting the creative process and the making of art. It is sad, because I think that you tend to bring each other down in these discussions (which really seems to be the unspoken intention of the people who dominate these threads, as far as I can tell).

I propose that maybe it's time to put this bickering to bed and get back to a more mutually supportive atmosphere around here.

[David Luttmann]

Truer words......

Funny, this is exactly what some of us have been saying all along. Deaf ears I guess.

All the best, Chris.

[paulr]

Amen.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Sorry to disappoint the cheerleaders, but the US is not the center of the universe. I attended a similar function here in Mexico where we had curators, book editors and gallery reviewers coming from places like France and Spain. Nobody here presented ink jet work but one American guy and his work was not very well received. So this notion that "the art world" has accepted ink jet is more like the US art world. Then again if they organize a portfolio review and everybody brings ink jet, what are they supposed to do, shut it down? This sounds to me more like shoving down the throat than "acceptance."

No matter, in the end I think that once the novelty of big posters wears out the outcome will be different, at least in the art world.

[Todd Schoenbaum]

"You run into the most beautiful woman that ever lived, she also gives you the hottest, the most passionate and satisfying sex you ever had, does that mean you mean you get rid of her because you find out she wears a wig?"



Actually, I think that a more appropriate analogy would be if I found out that she was a robot, or a plastic surgery queen, or used to be a man. Would that change how I felt about that very same person ... damn right it would.
Neglecting the means used to achieve the end, in any situation is a very dangerous approach. I'll let you come up with examples on your own. Oh, I cant resist... think baseball players on steroids, beautiful but poorly made cars, all sorts of political events, etc.



" How can you backtrack and unlike something?"
Because the means are important to me. This is the depth of a photograph, what lies beyond the image itself. The final result is the most important thing, but how it was achieved matters very much to me as well.



"Isn't this really a matter of despite you not prefering digital, somebody getting over on you with a digital image and you're not willing to admit it?"
Getting it over on me with an image? Like I lost to a digital image at a contest? Yeah, that sort of think would probably piss me off, but so would losing to a hand-colored silver print. But I dont enter contests. And as far as I know, no one has ever "gotten over on me" with a digital (or traditional) image.

The reason my words may seem strong or offensive is that I care about my craft, deeply. I dont like things that cut it down, that reduce it to techno-gimicry. I feel that computers dilute the craft. You dont... fine. I dont really care. Actually I am glad for the digital (d)evolution. I would never have been able to afford the quality of the equipment that I now use. Also, I think that digital will prove to be a wonderful method for seperating out the photographic craftsman from the dabblers.



Sorry for all the fire, but passion burns bright.

[Jeff Moore]

Very well put, Chris. I don't think I have ever agreed more with any words that have been written on this forum.

[Jonathan Brewer]

'I feel that computers dilute the craft. You dont... fine. I dont really care. Actually I am glad for the digital (d)evolution. I would never have been able to afford the quality of the equipment that I now use. Also, I think that digital will prove to be a wonderful method for seperating out the photographic craftsman from the dabblers.'....................................I can respect anybodies preference for choosing to work in whatever medium, and I do, and it's not a matter of whether you think computers dilute the craft, and/or you think that I don't, which incidently doesn't happen to be the case, since I shoot straight film for the most part, I do manipulate shots w/photoshop when I feel like it, on the occaision when I have an idea that I can accomplish using those particular tools.

Because you use film doesn't make you a craftsman, you are either good at your craft or you're not, and on top of that you choose to use certain tools, there are plenty of people who are so called purists that make lousy pictures, so this thing w/craft is an individual thing exclusive of what's used to execute the final image, quite a bit of digital is flashy, unimaginative, gimmicky, BUT NOT ALL OF IT................................but none of this has anything to do with the 'doublethink' you engaged in when you said you saw something you liked, found later it was digital and suggested that you couldn't appeciate it, I mentioned the beautiful sexy woman w/a wig because as ridiculous to you as it may sound, it fits what you're saying to a 'T', you enjoyed these images, finding out some other particulars about an image whatever they may be isn't going to change that.

You eat something,....... it's delicious,.......................................... you find out later that the ingredients don't agree w/you, that doesn't changed the fact that you enjoyed it, regardless of whether or not you knew what was in it. In terms of the other examples like the analogy of meeting what you thought was a woman who turned out to be a man, I'm sure you'd be pissed but then again in this day and age maybe you should have looked a little closer before you leap.

I don't wish to get into a pissing contest, but my take on what you said was that you liked something, found out later it was made w/a process you don't respect, so somehow you rework it some kind of way to where you say that didn't really happen.

If the idividual who did the image was good enough to use a process you don't like to get you to like it(however brief that might've been), then he did 'get over on you' in a sense, you just don't like that fact, that he/she was good enough to make you like it and you would've kept on liking it, until you found otherwise, now that position is an untenable one to defend but I'm sure you will go on defending it.

Let's get one thing straight, I'm for enjoying/being inspired by good work, I'm not for the dilution of craft by anybody using anything, and I think it's disingenious of you to suggest otherwise because I don't happen to agree w/you.

[Wayne]

Very well put Chris, but nothing you said hasnt already been said.
BTW, its not surprising to me that it doesnt even come up at a conference of "selected" photographers who mostly use digital. Thats like sampling a Southern Baptist convention for their views on Roe Vs Wade.

Jonathon, yes it would matter a lot to me. You are free to feel differently and sleep with passionate, wigged women. He didnt say he never liked/enjoyed the picture originally, he said he changed his mind after finding out it was digital. Are we not allowed to change out mind as we learn more? Have you never liked someone or something and then changed your mind when you learned more? What if you found out your woman was having that same passionate sex with your best friend too? A whole lot more than the image matters to a lot of people-might as well get used to it, its not going away.

[David Luttmann]

"Sorry to disappoint the cheerleaders, but the US is not the center of the universe."

And Mexico is? LOL

Sorry, but it is painfully obvious what is really going on here. For some on this thread, it no longer has anything to do with quality, craft, or workmanship. It has now become outright snobbery. It comes down to a fear from those using old methods not willing to accept that they no longer have to go through all the drudgery in the darkroom. Just because the photographer doesn't use film, or prints digitally, does not detract from the image. And thankfully, as is obvious in Chris' message, it appears that those interested in the image greatly outnumber those obsessed with a method.

It is safe to say that in the end, it is the final image that matters.

Oh and Jorge, inkjet was accepted readily at showings I attended in Hong Kong, Germany, the UK and here in Canada. And I do recall you turning up your nose to France before. I guess France is now on your "OK" list if it suits your argument.

My daughter could probably sum up this thread better with her "whatever."

[tim atherton]

"BTW, its not surprising to me that it doesnt even come up at a conference of "selected" photographers who mostly use digital. Thats like sampling a Southern Baptist convention for their views on Roe Vs Wade. "

I don't believe that "using digital" was a critera for selection to go to the conference. More along the lines of some of the best up and coming fine art/creative photogrpahers working in the medium today and having the chance for some of the more important curators, editors, art directors, publishers, gallery and agency reps review their work - from George Eastman House, to Magnum, to Aperture to SteidlMACK to Stephen Bulger and so on.

That a majority of those selected happened used digital at some point in the production of their work, and that this in itself was not a point of debate with the curators editors and publishers et al - the art world chattering classes - is telling, and what I believe was Chris's point.

[paulr]

"Sorry to disappoint the cheerleaders, but the US is not the center of the universe."

I haven't been to the Rencontres de la Photographie in Arles, France (which, sorry to say Jorge, may well be the center of the photographic universe, and is even farther from Mexico than the U.S.), but I'm willing to bet the views there are 100% the same. Chris, have you gone?

[Jonathan Brewer]

'Jonathon, yes it would matter a lot to me. You are free to feel differently and sleep with passionate, wigged women. He didnt say he never liked/enjoyed the picture originally, he said he changed his mind after finding out it was digital. Are we not allowed to change out mind as we learn more? Have you never liked someone or something and then changed your mind when you learned more? What if you found out your woman was having that same passionate sex with your best friend too?'

That's funny, ........................if you find a great looking woman, she's crazy about you, passionate, she lights up your life and you 'kick her to curb' because of a wig, I'm sure there'll be somebody to snap her up and say 'Merry Christmas'. I'm happy w/the wife I've got, but if I didn't have anybody, count me among the very sane who doesn't 'sweat the small stuff', and would snap up a woman/jewel(wig or no wig) like that in a second.

If my woman was having sex w/my best friend, then she would be his woman not mine, and he wouldn't be my best friend.............don't be silly.

He said what he said, it's as simple as that, no more, no less.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

And your point is Paul? Jordan is talking about personal experiences, so am I. This does not make either one the definitive "unanimously" behavior of the "art world." So I will take that bet.

[domenico Foschi]

Ah Ellis, did you really have to do this?
O.K. , these are my views about the all subject.

I am slowly changing my mind in the value of working in photoshop. I used to view the all digital imaging process a shortcut for lazy people to achieve images.
Working on it for a couple of years I have realized that this software is capable of fine tuning an image at my liking in the smallest details. That is something that is virtually impossible with silver.
I have also one of my images in a show currently in digital output because is very difficult to print, which i sell at a considerably lower price.
I sure prefer digital when it comes to editorial work.
And now the words that will crucify me.
I know that Ansel Adams in this forum has been included in the rostrum of Saints by many member of this forum, and I have noticed that his ethics have been considered standards in the world of fine art photography.
I appreciate the way he defends the freedom of expression of any artist even though the approach in producing images might be different from the teaching he offered, (and that is something that some members in this forum should remember from time to time ).
Ansel Adams has been known to photograph some of his finished fine print and create edition that would be sold to a lesser price from the originals, rightly so.
This is where I tie digital.
Isn't a digital print more a reproduction of a digital file ?
When I click the print button in my print software i can tell the printer to produce 1 copy or 10 or more...
The photographer doesn't have a personal relationship with each print . That is gone.
I think you agree when I say that the love you have with one of your images is born from the attention and care you put into it to make it ...speak. That attention and care are present in each copy of the limited edition.
If you have chosen digital as your medium, is fine with me. You want to call it fine art? That is fine with me. You want to sell it as such? That is also fine with me.

I don't really care if the trends are changing in the fine art world.
I will go digital in editorial work , but I don't want to miss that special pride I feel when I finally have a good wet print in my hands.

[Wayne]

If my woman was having sex w/my best friend, then she would be his woman not mine, and he wouldn't be my best friend.............don't be silly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for proving my point. :)

[Jonathan Brewer]

What point would that be??? If my woman or your woman was unfaithful, and betrayed you by having sex w/your best friend, and you get rid of her, that doesn't change the fact that you wanted her or had great sex w/her if that happened to be the case.

Why you got rid of her didn't have anything to do w/why you wanted her, they're two different things, and so is what you're saying about Todd,..............................................you asked if somebody can't change their mind, or course they can, ......................................you can say you like something, and change your mind, but that's not what Todd suggested, ......................he says he liked something until he found out that it was done digitally and then says that he can't really appreciate it, pretending that he didn't like it in the first place, with all due respect, that's absurd.

You have a great looking girlfriend who enjoy passionate sex with who you ultimately get rid of because of her betraying you w/your best friend, if you're going to be a man/grown up about it, you'll say in retrospect........'she betrayed me, and had to go, but boy did we have some great sex'...........................and that would be facing up to the truth.

What Todd said was proof that there's somebody out there good enough w/digital to get him to like what he says he doesn't like, the fact that he later finds out what he like was created digitally would have caused me under the same circumstances to say,..........'well, I don't like digital, but I like this'.................that's being up front and honest about this, instead of saying,..............'I liked it, but now that I find out it was created digitally, I now know that I didn't really like it in the first place'...........................................you're kidding yourself.

[Todd Schoenbaum]

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 appreciation for it when I found out that it was never shot with any sort of camera to begin with?



To clarify, if I see an image that I like, only to find out that it was done digitally, I would certainly agree to the statement that I liked the image. What I would also have to say is that I cannot appreciate it in the same way. Is this really so absurd a position? Part of my appreciation for photography lies in the images created, the other part lies in the craftmanship of those creating the image. I also have a much greater appreciation for photographers who do all their own printing and processing. Silver prints made by a lab would also drecrease my enjoyment of the image. I also dislike images that are staged and captured as though they were not.



When the digital artists get good enough to fabricate photo-realistic images entirely on the computer, what will you say then? Would your appreciation for an image change once you found out that it was never shot with a camera of any sort? I think a lot more of people coming down on me here would find themselves quite able to change their opinion of an image that was entirely fabricated.



Let me be clear that I do not think that digital photography is entirely abohorent. I think that it is a great tool for many types of photography. If I shot for a magazine, or product, I too would certainly be using digital. And when I post auctions, I borrow someone's digital to take the pictures.

I didnt really want to get into all this bickering. I really enjoy this forum, regardless of medium used and I respect everyone on here. I apoligize for offending anyone's sensibilities. I know that there are craftsman using PS and I'm sure your work is quite good.

[Brian C. Miller]

AHEM!!!

Could you guys please knock it off with the wild nymphomaniacal women and get back to chemicals, glass, plastic and paper??

Thanks!

[tim atherton]

"Ansel Adams has been known to photograph some of his finished fine print
and create edition that would be sold to a lesser price from the
originals, rightly so.

This is where I tie digital.

Isn't a digital print more a reproduction of a digital file ?

When I click the print button in my print software i can tell the printer
to produce 1 copy or 10 or more...

The photographer doesn't have a personal relationship with each print .
That is gone. "

You seem to be thinking mainly in black and white...?

Much fine art photography is in colour. Many (possibly a majority) of colour workers used to go to a professional lab/printer to have their colour prints made. Yes, they were usually "hand made" by a printer in a darkroom, but where exactly in that is the photographers personal relationship to each print? In most cases, the pritner was given a set of instructions and then produced x number of pritns from that negative, usually as closely as possible to each other - they weren't being paid to introduce variations.

In addition, digital (whether directly from a digital file of froma neg/tranny) has probably led to a much greater increase in colour workers having a much closer realtionship with how their final image looks, thanks to the controls of photoshop etc, than when they relied on giving a set of instructions to a printer, who then interpreted them in their own way, using a much more limited set of tools for controlling how the final photograph looked.

"Isn't a digital print more a reproduction of a digital file ?"

Isn't a silver gelatin print more of a reprodcution of a negative? What does a digital file actually look like? How do you "reproduce" it? Digital file and negative are both matricies from which a final print is produced. Which is one of the characterstics analogue and digital photogrpahy have in common comapred to say painting or drawing.

[David Luttmann]

"and what if I found out that instead of merely being processed digitally, it was in fact created entirely on the computer?"

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 back to the original topic....yes, I think anyone who loves a photo and then decides they no longer do because of the method, is not a photographer but simply a tech or method adherent. Much like for may audiophiles, music is nothing more than an excuse to listen to their equipment!

[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]

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL...Paddy, you seem to have missed the point. You are arguing with your fellow ink jet printer. I say, if the "final product is what matters" then an ink jet poster of a completely computer generated image should also be a "photograph." You seem to be stuck on trying to "show" me with similar analog processes.....I could not care less, it is not my argument. SO please, pay attention.

[Melchi M. Michel]

Photography is like life . . .



Or rather this debate is like the debate about when human life begins. That is, most of us agree that there is a point before which human life (as such) does not yet exist in a moral sense (say, in the gametes). We also agree that there is some point at which human life definitely exists (say in a mature, adult human). However, there is no clear line of demarcation, and, while the ethical squabble is about finding the line of demarcation in the broad gray region of consensus, much of the political debate (on both sides) proceeds by setting up straw men in the areas that both sides agree are definitely "life" or "not life" rather than in the gray areas. Most of the digital use of photography by people who contribute to this forum falls well within the gray area rather than "clearly digital illustration" domain, just as most of the use of traditional photographic materials by members of this forum falls well within the area of "clearly photography" area rather than in the gray area between photography and photoillustration, photomontage, photograms, or what have you. Please keep this in mind.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

uh huh! I guess if you keep ignoring the question you hope it will go away uh? So tell us, didn't you say this:

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 how is a computer generated image different from from the fauxtography you do? After all "the final image is all that matters"....no? Hell, even Paddy has been busting himself providing examples of analog work (which BTW is not the same thing IMO, but that is another matter) to show how wrong you are..... :-)

....As to my retirement, I know one thing, I dont have to explain myself to you (as you seem to be doing with me), but let me put it this way, I make a hole lot more than minimum wage printing for real photographers.... ;-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Not sure who the printing tech is,

I dont know, you tell me, you are the only one who keeps answering.... ;-)

[Paddy Quinn]

Oh, I got the point well before you mentioned it Jorge.

One problem with this debate seems to be that some people seem to feel the need for clear cut narrow definitions of what is what. Yet this has never really been the case with photography - it has always been as much (if not more) about art than science and amateurs (in the old sense of the word) have always had as much input and influence as the "professionals" or experts - as such it has always been the bastard child of the more classical arts.

Take the need to define "what is a photogrpah". I think it was Jorge who came up with a quote from Websters. Apart from the fact that all dictionary definitations are usually both simplified and non-specialised (and usually more about language than about the content of that language), you can go usually to half a dozen of the most respected dictionaries and find five slightly different definitions and one very different one - all to suit whatever purpose you want to put them to.

So, photograph. Many define what you make in the camera as the "photogrpah" - what you make later is the "photographic print" - confusingly, for those who desire absolute precision, often also referred to in shorthand as a "photograph".

After all - when you are blocking the street with your tripod and big clumsy camera and someone trying to get past asks what you are doing, what do you answer? Most of us would say "taking (or makign) a photograph.

As much as some might desire it, all these terms are fluid, imprecise and open to expansion or contraction in meaning as the medium evolves and changes.

In addition, the history of photogrpahy shows it has nearly always been an inclusive and democratic medium. It has much more often embraced and included new methods, technologies and materials than excluded them, despite the predictable grumbling of a few.

[Wayne]

I used to think there was a broad gray area Melchi, until someone pointed out that quantizing the image is an obvious and useful line of demarcation.

[paulr]

I'm sorry, I got distracted for a second ... what does all this minimum wage stuff have to do with girls in wigs? And who did my best friend sleep with??

[David Luttmann]

Paulr,

Jorge has some misconception that I work in a 1 hour photo lab for minimum wage and likes to post that information on a regular basis. My guess is because it makes him feel better about himself or makes him feel important. The only boss I seem to have is my wife.

But this is what we normally get from Jorge. When he corners himself with some silly dictionary definition and can't get out, he turns to insults and name calling. It's par for the course. He acts the same in other forums... we've just been spared a bulk of his profanity here because the forum moderator acts fairly quick.

Best regards Paulr,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Paddy, buddy. You are wasting your time, what you are writing has been written by Paulr many times already. We got it, as far as the definition, it was your fellow fauxtographer who said a computer generated image is not a photograph but his posters are. I just want to know why... :-)

[Paddy Quinn]

"We got it, as far as the definition, it was your fellow fauxtographer who said a computer generated image is not a photograph but his posters are. I just want to know why... :-) "

Simple - he took them with a camera. It's not that hard to figure out

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Simple - he took them with a camera. It's not that hard to figure out

Well, apparently not that simple. Remember, the "final image is what matters." Something you guys keep repeating incessantly. So what do you care how the "final image" was made? If an ink jet poster is a photograph then it does not mater how the poster was made...no? Whether he used a camera or not it does not matter....."the final image is what counts".....

I dont know why you seem to be stuck in the photograph thing, but it seem you did not get the point.

[Paddy Quinn]

"I am now putting traditonal photographic paper in a Lambda lazer exposing unit and exposing the paper from digital files worked on in PS or straight from Phase backs, then processing the paper in traditional methods. I am currently using fibre base paper(agfa classic) cibachrome(cps) and any of the RA4(chrstal archive,endura , metal). The * Deveere unit* mentioned is a LED device that fits on a 4x5 deveere enlarger and creates an virtual projected negative from a digital file. "

I ran some tests last year witha lab that also used a Lambda to trad B&W paper as well as with the DeVere.

The Lambda unfortunately suffers from a well known slight softenss or lack of resolution compared to say the Chromira (somehwat different technologies) and this seems to show up more on fibre type papers than on RC colour for some reason.

We found the Lambda prints up to about 20x24 showed this slight softenss quite noticably compared to prints from the same files on an Epson 9600 and also the DeVere(as well as a traditional enlargement). Up to about 20x24 the DeVere and the traditional enlargement gave about the best and comparable results. Over 20x24 the problems with the Lambda weren't such an issue.

[Ellis Vener]

And now for something completely different:

http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/hall/index.html

[David Luttmann]

Paddy,

I found that the Lightjet output was sharper than that of Chromiras. However, Lightjet Vs Inkjet using similar finishes was not much of an issue for me. If I need a really big print, I sent it to a lightjet via FTP. Anything 24x30 and smaller, I output to my 7600.

I haven't had any experience with the DeVere units so I can't comment there.

Regards,

[Paul Butzi]

Paddy, can you comment on the smoothness of tone achieved with the various digital-onto-fibrebase solutions like the Lamda, the Devere LED head, and the Chromira?

[David Luttmann]

Paul,

The tonal smoothness of the Chromira and Lightjet are superb. I send some of my work to a lab in Vancouver that uses the Lightjet system and Fuji Crystal Archive and the results with slightly warmtoned B&W in RGB is something I am always be happy with.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

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

And you consider yourself the "master" logician huh? You call an image scanned from a negative and drawn on a paper with a machine a "photograph" and then turn around and say that the same process that is just made with bits an pieces of other photographs and drawn on paper with the same machine not a photograph.....wow, amazing piece of logic.

S tell me, this chromira stuff you use, you have pic to show us? You must have a digital file somehwere we can see....

[Paddy Quinn]

Dave,

I was going to say I was talking about B&W not color (I have color prints done via Chromira usually) then I saw your second post. I really haven't found B&W RGB prints on RC via the Chromira or Lighjet to be satisfactory. I just don't quite the look, and (unless it's on the B&W for colour processes paper) I can nearly always detect a slight colour cast.

I quite like inkjet output to watercolor type papers - epson ultrasmooth, Arches Infinity or Photo Rag, but again, prefer it if it is done with quad type inks. I am still not entirely happy with the results printing via the Ultrachrome Epson inkset for example - even with toned prints or those printed througn a RIP there is still nearly always some metamerism under different lighting that is noticable. And even with Quad inks, it's still not quite yet there for me (I haven't tried the new Epson Inks/Printers yet).

The DeVere seems pretty good and is my favourite right now - and of course you can do fibre or RC. It depends a lot on the scan/original file and the operator though. Mine were actually done with friends at DeVere so they knew what they were doing - I've been involved with them since the CIA used to buy their enlargers for printing up hi-level recon photos (they used to have a arehouse space in Virginia with different DeVere enlargers in them. When something went wrong with one a Langley and they couldn't fix it we would fly out a tech from N Devon in the UK and he would show the CIA tech on the "demo" set up what to do, then he would go back to Langley and fix it... which always seemed a bizarre way of doing things).

The DeVere does have a bit of a "look" of its own that's hard to describe, but imo it's the closest to a trad enlargement

[Gene Crumpler]

Moderater

Please put on a filter or spam blocker, etc, to kill these digital vs silver debates PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[David Luttmann]

Paddy,

I'm probably not noticing the colorcast you refer to as pretty much all of the Lightjet work I do for B&W is either sepia or platinum toned. I haven't done any standard B&W on the Chromira or Lightjet. All that goes thru my 7600 with Hahnemuhle paper, Moab, or even Ilford. My B&W inkjet work has been primarily carbon pigment as of late....although I'm open to trying new inks.

I'll have to try the Devere setup sometime to see how it compares to LJ or Chromira. I find myself with little time to experiment as the workflow of printing our portrait & wedding photos as well as enlargements for a number of other photographers means that I try not to muck around with the setup too much.

Where do you send your DeVere work to?

Regards,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

all of the Lightjet work I do for B&W is either sepia or platinum toned

Just how do you platinum "tone" a chromira? why dont you show us......surely you must have something to show, you talk like you know so much?

[Paul Butzi]

I really haven't found B&W RGB prints on RC via the Chromira or Lighjet to be satisfactory. I just don't quite the look, and (unless it's on the B&W for colour processes paper) I can nearly always detect a slight colour cast.


That's very interesting. One thing I've noticed is that color profiles which are adequate for color printing can be worthless for monochrome printing, especially if the desired print colors are close to neutral. The human eye is absolutely incredible at detecting color shifts close to neutral!

So I wonder if the color casts you're seeing on the Chromira/Lightjet prints are overall casts that are hard to dial out (and might be the result of process control deviations?) or are casts that shift depending on where on the tonal scale the area falls (and thus might be profiling problems).

Is the color cast problem the entire reason you find the prints unsatisfactory, or are there other problems?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

hmmm....no answer.... I guess fake B&W prints deserve fake "toning" as well...ah well, at least it is consistent. I understand if you are unable to make real prints with real toning, this would require learning photography.... ;-)

[David Luttmann]

Paul,

True. The color profiles for the LJ & Chromira are just OK in B&W. Depending on how often the machine is tuned, you can get some color shifts, albeit minor. Most good labs run a matching sequence daily to make sure there is as little shift as possible.

It has proven a minor issue for me as I mentioned to Paddy that all the B&W work I send to process via LJ or Chromira is for the most part warm-toned, Sepia, or Platinum toned. Actually, the warm tone I use is a slightly modified version of the "Slightly warm midtones, neutral highlights" PS tone curve from your website. I adjusted it slightly so that it is just ever so slightly rendering the duotone color from lenswork magazine.

I find that when I send this for processing in Vancouver, it is pretty much bang on every time. Of course, I get the most control printing it myself.....but that's not an option for prints greater than 24x30. Maybe there's a 9800 in my future afterall......just need to convince my wife ;-)

[paulr]

Jorge, I'm going to go way, way, way out on a limb and suppose you're really having trouble with the distinction being made, and not just fighting because you think it's fun.. For the reccord, what I'm about to say reflects nothing more than common usage among historians and curators. It's has nothing to do with absolute truths, moral principles, natural law, or my personal manifestos and conspiracy theories.

"Photography" is used to describe the way an image is captured. It generally means an image that in some way was made by an impression of light on a light sensitive material, and where the content of the image is created primarily by optical rather than manual influence.

The term is not specific to how the image is stored, manifested, produced, or presented. Curators speak of daguerrotypes, photogravures, platinum prints, c-prints, images on digital projectors, newspaper pictures, and polaroids as photographs--IF the origin of the image is photographic. All of these media can be used to print images of non-photographic origin too.

The gray areas involve the way the image was captured, and there are many of them. Some include photograms, "light painting," and images made by painting developers and bleaches onto exposed photographic materials.

If this doesn't correspond with your personal definition, it doesn't mean that you are wrong. It just means that you are in general disagreement with the larger establishment that's charged with making the definitions. Trying to convince others to use your definition rather than the one used by the art-historical, curatorial, and academic worlds might continue to provide many hours of harmless entertainment, but I can't help but think that all that energy could actually go into making some art. By whatever process you like.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Paul, buddy you have written this before and I got it the first time. But now we have moved on. The printing tech said:

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, a scanned image which is then "drawn" (to use his word) with a machine is "photography" but a constructed image in the computer which is then "drawn" with the same machine is not photography. He then goes on to try an equate this with painting or drawing (great logic here, wow!). But then OTOH in other posts he said that if an ink jet print looks like a silver print or a pt/pd, then there is no difference. So, how come the backtracking now? As I said, is this how it works, my fauxtography is good but yours is not? and ink jet poster is an ink jet poster, no matter how it was made an ink jet poster whether constructed or made from a negative scan or a digital image still looks the same. Heck if we call "photography" montages made with multiple negatives and if we are going to call ink jet prints "photographs" then why not call a constructed image in a computer a photograph? I say you cant have it both ways, you cant say ah yes this is a photograph because I used a camera, and then say nope, that ink jet poster is not a photograph because you did not use a camera, even if they look exactly the same....

after all the "final image is what matters"....no?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I wish we had an edit function here. Anyhow, you wrote:

If this doesn't correspond with your personal definition, it doesn't mean that you are wrong. It just means that you are in general disagreement with the larger establishment that's charged with making the definitions. Trying to convince others to use your definition rather than the one used by the art-historical, curatorial, and academic worlds might continue to provide many hours of harmless entertainment, but I can't help but think that all that energy could actually go into making some art. By whatever process you like.

You are correct and incorrect.

I am not trying to convince anybody, I know that is not going to happen in the same manner you or the printing tech will not convince me.

I agree I am not wrong, and so are many other people who are speaking up, I see the tide changing.

As to my energy, dont you worry I have plenty to do both. Hell, I am on a permanent vacation... :-)

[paulr]

"you have written this before and I got it the first time. But now we have moved on."

It doesn't seem to me like you've moved on. The answer to everything you're trying to puzzle out is in that post (and in three or four others, somewhere up there between the sluts wearing wigs and the challenges to Mexico's world dominance). You're still trying to define photography through the output process, which is not how the rest of the world does it. Where did the image come from? That's the question that matters, at least if you're trying figure out the difference between a photograph and an illustration.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

One last time Paul, I am not. Lets call all of it photography even those ink jet posters that are constructed in a computer by someone with no photographic knowledge but great PS skills. Why not call them "photographs," you are the ones telling us the "final product is what matters".....

Seems to me you are the one who keeps arguing even on the face of my accepting ink jet posters as photographs. You are the one who cannot move on, you want to call them photographs, well then by all means do so, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too.....if it is an ink jet posters it is a photograph, no matter how it was made.....remember...the "final product is what matters"... ;-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Where did the image come from?

Forgot to add, if it is an ink jet poster, it came from a computer.....so, as Paddy has spent so much time posting, a montage, whether done in a DR or a computer is still a photograph.....so, looks like we dont need cameras anymore...lets just all study PS and make pictures by numbers.... :-)

[paulr]

We all (I think) consider silver prints to a be a photographic medium, but not all silver prints are photographs. You could make an illustration by hand and scan it, or do a photoshop painting, etc., make a digital negative, and silver print it. Most curators would consider this some kind of mixed media piece, but not a photograph, because the original image wasn't created photographically.

The final product may be what matters to most people when they're evaluating how succesful/unsucesful, important/irellevant, etc. a work is, and when they're trying to understand what it's about. But the medium of photography gets its identity from the way the image is captured from nature.

If these ideas don't make sense, then I humbly give up.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

But the medium of photography gets its identity from the way the image is captured from nature.

Really? no kidding......you mean like using a camera, film and then light sensitive materials to print it?

I thought we had agreed that this is not necessarily the case. That anything that is put in paper with an image is a "photograph", dye transfer, photogravure, lithographs, ink jet posters, etc, etc.

Seems to me because I dont accept your idea that you can define when an ink jet poster is a "photograph" and when is not you are "giving up humbly." How about you arguing your point to death too and refusing to see the thoughts that others have put as to why an ink jet poster is not a photograph. As I said, people are presenting made up images in a computer as photographs, and now you are saying that these are not photographs....once again, my fauxtography is fine but not yours...seem rather hypocritical.

So listen, you want to agree to disagree, fine. But dont give me this "I give up humbly" bullshit, as if I refused to see your point, you are guilty of the same buddy....

[Paddy Quinn]

"But the medium of photography gets its identity from the way the image is captured from nature.

"Really? no kidding......you mean like using a camera, film and then light sensitive materials to print it?""

NO no no... - this is precisley where you make the leap that twists and confuses the whole thing.

Paul said "But the medium of photography gets its identity from the way the image is captured from nature" - which is the simplest, clearest and most broadly accepted definition of photogrpahy in the art/museum/institution/archives world (and for many beyond that)

You half accept that; "you mean like using a camera, film" and then you completly muddy it up and make your illogical leap by adding; "and then light sensitive materials to print it?" That ISN'T what Paul said even though you basically make a play of agreeing with what he said:

"I thought we had agreed that this is not necessarily the case. That anything that is put in paper with an image is a "photograph", dye transfer, photogravure, lithographs, ink jet posters, etc, etc" - Again, that is not what most people have said here (and I don't think Paul has said it?), but you keep repeating it. And by doing so you can keep making your knock down argument about inket posters or images created entirely on the computer and then "printed" - it's a false circular argument no-one else is making.

Simply put, the base definition of photogrpah is: "the medium of photography gets its identity from the way the image is captured from nature". No printing on light sensitive whatevers.

In this sense and context, how the photograph is presented is secondary - and as we all know, that is usually some form of photographic print (which, btw is why the term "print" is used - it was clearly an intentional choice of terminology)

But whatever was captured through the act of photographing - capturing the image from nature through the action of light on some kind of photosensitive material (film or sensor) - is the photograph. It can be presented many ways - light sensitive paper, on metal, in a newspaper or magazine or as a dye-sub or on the phosphors of a TV screen (or even, as an inkjet print). But whatever means of presentation that is secondary. The photograph has already been created - its means of presentation, how it is to be mediated, is another thing.

Thus the inkjet print (from an image captrued as above) isn't really a problem - it's one of many forms of presenting the photograph. The image created entirely within the computer and then printed isn't a problem, - it's not a photograph, because it's creation doesn't meet that basic definition of what is a photograph.

And we haven't just made this up to fit this argument, nor was it just made up in the last couple of years to ease the way in for digital - it's been the standard definition of photography for a good few generations of photographers and those who work with photography.

[Paddy Quinn]

BTW regarding "so, as Paddy has spent so much time posting, a montage, whether done in a DR or a computer is still a photograph" - is a good example of how you twist the argument - I never said a montage is a photograph. Quite the opposite. I used the term photographic objects to refer to the range of image creation which have something in common with the photographic process - montages, collages, photograms/Rayograms, various mixed midia and so on, but which clearly aren't - by the above defintion - photographs - not because of the way they are printed, but because of the way they are created - there are several somewhat unsatisfactory ways to refer to such processes none entirely unambiguous because the range of processes is quite diverse

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

NO no no... - this is precisley where you make the leap that twists and confuses the whole thing.

yes, yes, yes...this is where you and your fellow fauxtographers make the illogical argument that the meaning of photography and a photograph is malleable and ever changing, so when one agrees to this and uses your same argument that "the final print is what matter" in the case of a photograph constructed entirely in the computer, then you want the definition of photography to be a rigid one where it includes the use of a camera. Why, if it looks like a photograph, why should it not be called that even if no camera was used?.....

You half accept that; "you mean like using a camera, film" and then you completely muddy it up and make your illogical leap by adding; "and then light sensitive materials to print it?" That ISN'T what Paul said even though you basically make a play of agreeing with what he said

LOL..pay attention, I know he did not say it. I said it and at the same time I was being sarcastic, perhaps I was too subtle for you. Once more, you want the definitions of photography and photograph to malleable when it suits you, but to be followed to the letter when it does not. Oh, and BTW, you are neither intelligent or sly enough to pretend to tell me what I am agreeing to, and I did not made a "play" at agreeing with what he said...as I said I was being sarcastic and at the same time underscoring how when you guys want the meaning of photography to suit you it always "ever changing."

Again, that is not what most people have said here (and I don't think Paul has said it?), but you keep repeating it. And by doing so you can keep making your knock down argument about inket posters or images created entirely on the computer and then "printed" - it's a false circular argument no-one else is making.

Really? Let me give you some examples:

The printing tech:

Printing something on inkjet or dye transfer that doesn't use photosensitive paper is called a photo by everyone other than those trapped in a futile argument against anything that has to do with a computer or digital output.

Paulr:

I'm sorry, but the world has already moved on. The definition of photography has expanded, as it has done from the begining and as it will continue to do. The fact that it now includes things that didn't exist back in (insert your notion of the golden age here) is of no consequence to anyone but you and others with a similar intolerance for change.

Keith Laban:

There will come a time in the not too distant future if we haven't reached the point already when most images will have nothing at all to do with film and traditional light sensitive materials. Like it or not there will also come a time when Websters Dictionary will redefine "photography" to reflect this change.

Paul Butzi:

Now, no matter how you want to play it, a dye transfer print is not a photosensitive surface, any more than the paper on which a photogravure is printed is a photosenstive surface, or the roll of paper which currently hangs in my inkjet printer is a photosensitive surface. The matrix films used to transfer ink to the paper in making a dye transfer print are photographs (by this definition) but the actual dye transfer print is not.

Paulr:

I'm curious to know if you can name a public collection, curator, or photography historian that defines photography the way you do. I've been searching for a while and can't come up with any. All of them use the term "prints" for processes that create multiples, and all of them consider non-light printing processes (gravure, dye sublimation, inkjet) to be photographs.

Enough? Of course, when one uses the same argument that you and your fellow fauxtographers made that the definition of photography is ever changing, that the "final image is what matters" and that therefore an ink jet poster made completely on a computer without the benefit of a camera should also be called a photograph, then you all dont like it....what is that? So tell me, who is the one who keeps repeating himself and making a circular argument?

Simply put, the base definition of photogrpah is: "the medium of photography gets its identity from the way the image is captured from nature". No printing on light sensitive whatevers.

LOL..oh really, says who? you?....funny this is not the definition I have, but then I guess the meaning of ever changing definition is one where it helps your argument.

Simply put the definition of a photograph is this:

"Photograph: An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface"

Funny how you and Websters disagree, I guess you know better, huh?.....

The image created entirely within the computer and then printed isn't a problem, - it's not a photograph, because it's creation doesn't meet that basic definition of what is a photograph.

LOL..ah I see, so when it suits you the basic definition is fine, when it does not then the definition is ever changing.....so, which is it....gosh, and I am supposed to be the one making "circular" arguments, huh?

And we haven't just made this up to fit this argument, nor was it just made up in the last couple of years to ease the way in for digital - it's been the standard definition of photography for a good few generations of photographers and those who work with photography.

Looks like you never picked up a dictionary, cause let me tell you, your definitions and the one most of all know seem to be a world apart. So I guess you did make them up just to fit this argument.

Anything else?......

[David Luttmann]

Paddy,

I guess this question got lost with the Jorge arguing with himself. Where do you send your DeVere work to be done?

Thanks,

[Wayne]

. But the medium of photography gets its identity from the way the image is captured from nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case of fauxtography, and unlike film, there really is no image captured. There is no image captured in your digital "camera", there are only digits. There is an image captured on film, and I have negatives to prove it. The simple presence of a camera does not mean photography is taking place-I have one on my desk right now and no photography is being commited. ;-) I think we can both agree that light passing through a lens does not photography make. Its what happens after that that matters. So what happens next?

Your so-called digital "image" is captured from nature the same way a graphic artist creates images-by creating digits in software , the only difference being yours are initiated via camera (which we already agree does not create photography on its own), and the others are initiated via keyboard or mouse.

[Ellis Vener]

Wayne, you wrote:
Your so-called digital "image" is captured from nature the same way a
graphic artist creates images-by creating digits in software , the only
difference being yours are initiated via camera (which we already agree
does not create photography on its own), and the others are initiated via
keyboard or mouse.


The thrust of this idea seems to be that photography is created when photons for a certain user specified amount of time at a user defined level of intensity, pass through a lens, shutter and a box which holds the shutter, lens film, strike a medium that is light sensitive medium. This process causes a reaction in the medium to change its state from one form to another. This light altered media is then converted to a color or monochromatic image by processing in certain chemical baths arranged in a more or less precise order and for more or less a precise amount of time.



Excepting that photographic images created with a digital camera utilize photo-voltaic sensitive cells, magnetic storage media and the that the atoms that form the resulting image are manipulated via electricity and then chemistry (when printing) instead of using silver halide crystals, a gelatin emulsion and manipulation via chemistry , how does suing a digital camera differ from older forms of photography? To me, Neither process or tool set seems any "purer", closer to "reality" or to "nature' than the other.

Another argument that has been raised earlier is that it is just 'the image" is that counts. I agree but include the tangible medium the image is presented in or on as part and parcel of the image.

[Paddy Quinn]

"Looks like you never picked up a dictionary, cause let me tell you, your
definitions and the one most of all know seem to be a world apart. So I
guess you did make them up just to fit this argument."

Of course I have. Lets take the OED - "the" standard dictionary of the English language. It gives precisely this definition, with no mention of the secondary way the image is then presented as its primary defintion of photography. Just the image exposed to light sensitive material in the camera.

[Wayne]

Excepting that photographic images created with a digital camera utilize photo-voltaic sensitive cells, magnetic storage media and the that the atoms that form the resulting image are manipulated via electricity and then chemistry (when printing) instead of using silver halide crystals, a gelatin emulsion and manipulation via chemistry , how does suing a digital camera differ from older forms of photograph?


Rofl, I could paraphrase this as "except being different in nearly every detail, are they not the same"? I just explained how digital is identical to computer-based imaging, THEY are in fact the same. I imagine someone with a wild imagination and a blind eye for detail will analogize analog photography with computer imaging now. I'd love to carry on but have to leave town for a couple days. I trust others will hold down the Forte in the meantime. ;-)

[David Luttmann]

Hey Paddy,

I think Jorge is catching up on some sleep after staying up to nearly 3am arguing with himself. Save your breath. He'll just twist the argument into something else a forget everything else that was said. Just ignore him.

I forgot to mention that I have sent some work to Calypso Imaging in Ca. Their LJ work in even better than what I get out of Vancouver. Maybe give them a try as well.

All the best.

[Ellis Vener]

I just explained how digital is
identical to computer-based imaging

But I wasn't writing about computer based illustration was I? I was writing about images created using a camera.

[Ellis Vener]

Wayne, your argument has the same weight as sayingthat becasue we are exchanging messages using a keyboard and a monitor that what we are doing isn't really writing because we aren't starting with paper and pen.

[paulr]

I'm really curious about why people here argue so passionately about what
isn't photography. To the point where you need to make up insulting names
for people who use new processes ("fauxtographers," etc). What do you get
out of it?

We're talking about definitions and categories which by their nature evolve
(as both technology and language evolve) and which are decided at any given
point in time by broad consensus of authorities. The authorities have spoken
on this one, my friends. I've asked anyone to name a major collection that
defines photography by the 19th Century definitions being proposed here,
and no one cares to answer.

And when the medium evolves again, they'll speak again. We don't have to agree
with the conclusions or even like them. We don't have to let them influence the
work we do. Definitions are about language, after all, and the point of consensus
is so that people can understand each other. Using your own personal definitions
instead of accepted ones doesn't elevate your work or change people's minds--it
just leads to confusion and to endless circular debates like this one.

Nothing I've said here represents MY ideas about what photography is.
Because no one here has any reason to care about what I think the word
means. Or reason to care what Jorge thinks the word means. But it might be
helpful for you to know what the curators, collectors, publishors, and gallerists
that you show work to think, if you want to be able to understand them and be
understood by them. And if you want to stop this pointless argument from recurring
again and again.

[Erik Gould]

I agree with Paul, let's stop the madness. Put all this passion into your work, I say. And in a side note, Man Ray coined the term "fauxtographer" to describe himself, and I doubt he would like it being tossed about as an insult.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Get back to your machine printing tech your boss is going to dock your pay, or to "platinum" tone fauxtographs. This discussion is beyond your meager reading comprehension.

Ok Paddy, lets take the Oxford English Dictionary:

Photograph:

• noun: a picture made with a camera, in which an image is focused on to film and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment.

Geezzz, if anything this really takes out scans and digital cameras, and consequently ink jet posters. As Wayne said, just because it has a lens does not a camera make.

See, here is the thing Paddy. Once people start calling you "irrational", or like the printing tech would like to believe start telling you, you have no logic. It is a sure sign they have run out of arguments. Also, if your and the printing tech's logic was unassailable, then your own argument that "the final print is all that matters" should stand being used by your opposition as I am doing. Funny, you and your fellow fauxtographers are now presenting to me the same arguments that were presented to you to argue ink jet posters are not photographs.

Now, I am willing to accept your definition of a photograph as it pertains to ink jet posters. Which if it is good enough for scans or digital cameras (and notice that by your choice of definitions it would not be even close) then a computer generated ink jet print made of parts of different photographs by someone with no photography knowledge but with exceptional PS knowledge is then a photograph too....simple.

Anyhow, given that is obvious you guys want to have your cake and eat it too, to use the definitions as it fits your arguments instead of as how they really are and since I have used your own arguments against you and now you are not liking the idea, I think the "logic" has been laid out for all to see. No matter how much you and the printing tech wish it was different in the end I guess "the final product is what matters" should be also amended to include your wishes as to what is photography.

Me, I am done, I am off to make real carbon prints, not the fauxtographs you all wish were carbon prints.

[Wayne]

I'm really curious about why people here argue so passionately about what isn't photography. To the point where you need to make up insulting names for people who use new processes ("fauxtographers," etc). What do you get out of it?


if you google the term, you will find out that fauxtography is not derogatory. In fact (I was surprised) many digital business are taking advantage of the term, which I think is wise. I think its a term that both fauxtographer and photographers can agree on. I think it has an air of sophistication to keep you all happy, and it accurately expresses how we feel, to keep us Luddites happy. As I've said before, if digital imagers dont come up with their own ORIGINAL name for their own unique art form, one will be foisted upon them. Few of them will sound as nice as fauxtography, IMO. I think you should run with it.


We're talking about definitions and categories which by their nature evolve (as both technology and language evolve) and which are decided at any given point in time by broad consensus of authorities. The authorities have spoken on this one, my friends. I've asked anyone to name a major collection that defines photography by the 19th Century definitions being proposed here, and no one cares to answer.

I have answered it many times, as usual you only see what you want to see. As you yourself say, definitions evolve and this one is still evolving. In the years to come as we see digital imaging's power further evolve, the need to differentiate will become even more clear. I dont see the numbers of people who agree diminishing Paul, I see them increasing every day. This issue has not been resolved as you like to think, and it isnt going to go away.

But I really do have to go away now.

[QT Luong]

if you google the term, you will find out that fauxtography is not derogatory.

Faux means fake.

If you feel you need a term to differentiate digital photography from traditional ("true") photography, why not use "digital photography" ? Many people will agree that "computer science" is not a science.

[paulr]

I've decided to be honored by any old people who call what i do fake photography.

The process I'm using now can be added to a long list of processes that were once condemned as Not the Real Thing.
Like salted paper prints, dry plates, film of any kind, enlargements of any kind, hand camera pictures, silver prints, and all color photography. Come to think of it, every process I've ever used has been considered fake at some point. I just never had good enough timing to be on the fake leading edge.

I've always had a lot of respect for people who went ahead doing their thing in spite of the crusty condemnations of their forebears. It's a noble lineage, and I hope my work is up to the standards of the pioneers in those other processes.

[David Luttmann]

"Get back to your machine printing tech your boss is going to dock your pay, or to "platinum" tone fauxtographs. This discussion is beyond your meager reading comprehension."

Thanks for the laughs Jorge....if all this is beyond someones comprehension.....why do YOU keep asking the questions? I think with all the insults and name calling you've thrown around, as well as the emails I've received off line.....people here have you pegged pretty well. I think we are all pretty much done with you. Maybe you can find another forum where people would be more receptive to your abuse and provide you an audience. I however, learned in this thread that the best way to agrevate people like you is to ignore your abuse and posts.

Anyway, thanks Paddy for the information on the DeVere system. I look forward to trying that system out soon to see how it compares to the LJ & my 7600.

Has anyone compared the latest Epson systems with that of LJ or Chromira?

Best regards,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

why do YOU keep asking the questions?

Actually I keep answering them, one always hopes that people like you might learn something. As to the e mail, do you really think you are the only one receiving e mails. You are a source of unending mirth to many of us.... ;-)

While we are at it, do you have a picture yet?.....what is the matter? cant open the Shen hao?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I've decided to be honored by any old people who call what i do fake photography.

OTOH Paul, we have a saying in Spanish that loosely translated means, the devil knows better not because he is the devil but because he is old.... :-)

Actually, I love it you all are doing so much fauxtography and selling it. I imagine 5, 10 years from know when they are all faded, things will change in a hurry.

[paulr]

Didn't you say you were done?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

just like you.....remember.

[paulr]

Dear Moderator,

In the interests of our children, and our children's children, would it be possible to archive this thread where it will never, ever be found?

Thank you,
P

p.s. Before I had merely given up. Now I'm done.

[Wayne]

Faux means fake.

Yes, I know that. And yet people are using it to their advantage in digital business. Its catchy. It sounds slicker than digital imaging, doesnt it?

If you feel you need a term to differentiate digital photography from traditional ("true") photography, why not use "digital photography" ? Many people will agree that "computer science" is not a science.

Why use "photography" at all, when it bears only a superficial resemblance to any photographic process? Because people want to capitalize on the long, rich tradition of photography, they want that name, thats why. And thats the reason fauxtography is so appropriate, because it has no tradition and no history. At least you could start building one if you had a name for it. I believe the history books are always going to have an asterisk next to Digital Photography*.

[Paul Coppin]

Glad to see that after 3 years, this argument still rages...:)


Ok Paddy, lets take the Oxford English Dictionary:

Photograph:

• noun: a picture made with a camera, in which an image is focused on to film and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment. .

If you guys were taxonomists, this would be the endless argument of the "lumpers vs. splitters"...

Lets look at the definition in real, technical terms; it is equally valid with traditional photography or digitized photography: ...picture made with a camera... no problem here, digital or film......in which an image is focused on to film... Surprise! No problem here either. A CCD is thin film technology. The image is being projected on a film, just not the same film. No problem here. ...made visible and permanent by chemical treatment. Gee whiz, no problem here either! The digitalized image winds up being "made visible and permanent by chemical treatment". Ink drops (chemicals) on a substrate (paper). The difference only is process. And in all "traditional" photographies, the difference, "only", is process. And so it is with digital. Each process defines the character or personality of the image "made visible and permanent by chemical treatment." How that personality plays is the subjective whim of society.

Jorge, you consistently value process over image ( and I'm not denigrating that fact in any way); digital photographers tend to value image over process. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the commercial art world (and I include the Fine Art world in that category) value image over process. Image is what is being sold. Within a subset, images relative to process have their own niche markets. Apples are apples, oranges are oranges, but they're both still fruits. :)

[David Luttmann]

Hey Paul,

Well said. I tend to go with the idea that a great image can be sold at say, 16x20, whether it is silver, inkjet, pt/pd, Lightjet, etc. A lousy image can NOT be sold no matter what the process. That it why the art world and most photographers value the image over the process....and thus, the image is what matters.

[Ellis Vener]

Bu a potentially great image has to be printed well. In the end the image and the print (process) are one.

[David Luttmann]

True Ellis....but it doesn't matter how you print a bad one....it's still bad. Probably it's best to say that the process starts with a good image and that the process may add to some of the nuance.

[Paul Coppin]

What the process does, is add the personality of the photographer/artist to the final image. The combination of a good image with the processes that are the forte of the particular photographer is what gives the photographer's unique voice to the image. Arguing over the process is the game of technicians, arguing over the image is the game of artists.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, you consistently value process over image

You are wrong, I value the process that makes the image superlative over image only with no regard to process just because I can dodge pixel by pixel. I sell photographs, and as such I like to think people buy them because of the image content, not just because they were printed in pt/pd. All that pt/pd does to my prints is add a tactile and depth quality I have not seen on any fauxtograph. I would add to your last post that arguing over the image and process is the game of the true photographer.

[QT Luong]

Why use "photography" at all, when it bears only a superficial resemblance to any photographic process?

Digital photography does share a number of common things with photographic processes. Whether those are essential or superficial is your own judgement call. But remember that there are very fundamental differences between Computer Science and Science as well. Also, to take another example, most people would say that East Palo Alto (used to be the US small town "crime capital" to the point that the city council wanted to change the name to erase bad memories) and Palo Alto (one of the nicest Silicon Valley towns) are not the same.

[Wayne]

Tell you what QT, if everyone who incorporates digital into their process begins to call what they do digital photography, call their prints digital photographs, and to call themselves digital photographers, I will relent.

I'm not going to hold my breath. Digital users do not want that distinction made.

[Wayne]

If you guys were taxonomists, this would be the endless argument of the "lumpers vs. splitters"...

Systematists argue about whether closely related species should be in the same taxonomic class or not, but they do NOT argue about whether two similar species with different evolutionary histories should be considered the same species. On this they are entirely in agreement. Its called convergent evoloution, and photography and digital imaging clearly evolved independant of each other.

[Paul Coppin]

I was pointing to the analogies of the argument, not the process. The test of speciation is reproductive isolation, and I would argue that traditional and digital are interfertile, but incipiently speciating, and that what you have is parallelism, not convergence...:) The analogies of the processes of traditional and digital photographies vs speciation are not a good fit, although you can draw them depending on how broad or loose you make definitions.

In no way are traditional and digital imaging independent of one another; we are arguing the processes not the result. "Imaging" itself is broadly generic enough to include all forms of image making. Like taxonomy, we are attempting to pigeonhole a continuum, and you can't. Well, you can, but you won't ever get agreement on how the boxes should be set up. Rearranging the boxes is what artists do... Trying to take "photography" out of "digital imaging", means you've reduced the definition of photography to "using light more than once", something that so far, has not been included in any "definition" of photography. The act of picking up a camera and recording photons, leading ultimately to a visible image, is the essence of photography. Everything in between is physics.

This discussion ALWAYS comes down to semantic arguments, because there is no universally accepted set of pigeonholed definitions for the "photography" continuum. The real question is "how does one solve the problem of reproductive isolation?". :):)