A Tale of Two Photos

[Ulophot]

I recently posted on my little site blog a short article about why some of us choose to continue using traditional photographic techniques despite the wonders of digital. It does not, of course, claim that a digital image of the same care cannot be made. The blog is generally aimed at newcomers to film photography who have been raised in the digital generations.

It's called "When Documentary Rises to Poetic" and uses two photographs of Dorothea Lange to discuss something of our process. Perhaps a few here will find it of interest.

https://imagesinsilver.art/thoughts-and-musings/f/when-documentary-rises-to-poetic

[BrianShaw]

Very nice! I hesitate to offer any criticism since the intent is understood and well executed, but I generally bristle at the term “analogue”, no matter how it is spelled. That term is so recent in the scope of the photographic arts and only exists post hoc because of the evolution to digital photography. That term and concept never existed before digital photography yet it tends to get used to describe all prior photographic capture. It’s a convenient way to differentiate the two capture methods and succinctly describe the difference but seems like an annoying perturbation of photographic history documentation. Perhaps a bit more of an explanation would benefit the younger/newer generation in understanding the implications of that term being used generically and being put in quotation.

EDIT (in addition to a couple of minor gramattical corrections above). Perhaps a one-word change might be considered: "Chemistry-based ‘Analogue’ Photography" and/or "Since the prematurely announced death of chemistry-based photography around 2013,..."

[MartyNL]

It was a pleasant surprise to discover your web-blog-site!

[gypsydog]

Very nice! I hesitate to offer any criticism since the intent is understood and well executed, but I generally bristle at the term “analogue”, no matter how it is spelled. That term is so recent in the scope of the photographic arts and only exists post hoc because of the evolution to digital photography. That term and concept never existed before digital photography yet it tends to get used to describe all prior photographic capture. It’s a convenient way to differentiate the two capture methods and succinctly describe the difference but seems like an annoying perturbation of photographic history documentation. Perhaps a bit more of an explanation would benefit the younger/newer generation in understanding the implications of that term being used generically and being put in quotation.

EDIT (in addition to a couple of minor gramattical corrections above). Perhaps a one-word change might be considered: "Chemistry-based ‘Analogue’ Photography" and/or "Since the prematurely announced death of chemistry-based photography around 2013,..."

I prefer Photography (meaning "chemical based") and digital capture for the other, the capture term also given rise by the birth of digital.

[Ulophot]

Thanks for the compliments.

Gents Against Analogue, I feel as you do and will ponder a change. I did, as you noticed, use single quotes for the first use. I'm not certain what the best choice would be. Stay tuned --as we used to say in the days of analogue radio and "TV".

[Willie]

Photographs..., and Pixelographs?

[Ulophot]

Photographs..., and Pixelographs?

Catchy, but even the pixels are responding to light.

[Graham Patterson]

Popular use will often confound logic. At one time IBM used the term ‘pel’ for what is now universally termed a pixel. When they wanted to refer to a picture element, the concept of pix as a plural for picture was not on (their) horizon 8-)

Does digital actually have an antonym? It is not as though chemical-based photographic recording is the opposite of electronic. They both just _are_. Photography has always suffered from too much consideration of the tools and not enough about images and communication.

[Ulophot]

Photography has always suffered from too much consideration of the tools and not enough about images and communication.

Well, at least in or lifetimes it has. Various observors have noted that amateur painters impressed with another's work rarely begin with, "What brush (canvas/paint/etc.) did you use?"

In any case, after the subhead in single quotes, I changed the one use of "analogue" to "chemistry-based." Adequate for the purpose.

[BrianShaw]

Various observors have noted that amateur painters impressed with another's work rarely begin with, "What brush (canvas/paint/etc.) did you use?"

I've read that, also, but never from artists... mostly from photographers reportingwhat they think artists say. :)

Ironically, just the other day I was at an art festival with an old friend, a real artist who graduated from an acclaimed art schol and practices many mediums. While chatting with one of the artists displaying their works, she immediately exchanged the obligitory "pretty pictures" comments and then they had a rather detailed discussion of different brands of water colors and their preferences. Never a discussion of brushes, though.

[Doremus Scudder]

Nothing wrong with discussing one's tools with a fellow craftsperson. They are, after all, the means by which we express our art.

In lieu of less unambiguous vocabulary, I would tend to use the terms that are in the widest use and, therefore, will be understood by the largest number of people. "Analog photography" seems to fit into that category. It is likely more understandable to the layman than "chemistry-based photography," who may not even know that chemistry is involved. Some just seem to know about film and developing but have no real idea how that is accomplished.

Nice article, Philip.

Best,

Doremus

[Oren Grad]

Why not just say "film photography"? Sure, some people make paper negatives, and no doubt there are other exotic edge cases. But if you just want something straightforward that will get your message across clearly to the largest possible audience...

[Vaughn]

"Film photography" sound good to me, though it will almost always lead to, "Do they still make film?"

Film + Digital = Hybrid (wet print or digitally printed)

Of course we have a bunch of different options in the mix.
Could be without the film photography...Digital + Chemical-base process = Hybrid Print
Or Film + Digital = Digital Image with a print never made (screen use only)

As a Dad-joke, I just say that no pixels were harmed making my platinum prints and carbon prints.

[MartyNL]

Why not just say "film photography"? Sure, some people make paper negatives, and no doubt there are other exotic edge cases. But if you just want something straightforward that will get your message across clearly to the largest possible audience...

Another vote for film photography, everything else just sounds so concocted and wayward.

[John Layton]

Analog...Hybrid...Digital - works for me...:)

[Tin Can]

OLD Sensors use organic material

Many phones have it

[BrianShaw]

The most important point, most likely, is that it is a well-written article with a lot of intrinsic value. Whatever label is used, the article, if read, stands on its own. Thank you for writing it.

[Ron in Arcata California]

Digital work should have been branded "pixelography" from the get go.

The word "analog" should have never been added to traditional "photography".

Perhaps a new word to describe lens created images that fits both art forms is needed. If I scan a traditional photo, I'm digitalizing the image. If I use a film camera and copy a digital print am I analogizing?

[cowanw]

I read your article before I fully digested your original post and was quite surprised to find all the replies here about the same old digital analogue arguments.
When I reread your original post, I then understood why not a single post discussed the pictures.
Too bad; your article was excellent, both as a neutral summary of history and as a comparison of two images.
I did not see anything in the article of that old tired film/digital argument.

So, my take on the images- one left no doubt as to the subject of the picture; The other was misdirected as regards the subject of the image.
As you say, the effort of post production was put into the successful image.
If your article was aimed at newcomers to film photography who have been raised in the digital generations, this post has attracted, mostly, quite a different group.

[Robert Bowring]

"Analog" is really annoying. I have never figured out what that meant in relation to photography. "Film photography" works for me. When anyone asks me if I can still get film while I am photographing something I simply say "no" and keep on working.