PDA

View Full Version : "B&W" magazine says No to digital photographs



Micah Marty
16-Mar-2002, 12:54
B&W, perhaps the fastest growing serious photography magazine (at least among those that don?t showcase equipment and supermodels), has declared that it will not feature "digital photography." (No precise definition was given, but the objection covers at least those photographs that were _output_ digitally.)

In an editorial titled, "In Consideration of Constancy" in the April 2002 issue, B&W publisher/editor/founder Henry Rasmussen writes, "I?m a traditionalist, in awe of old-fashioned craftsmanship, and moved by history. For me, this has always been the lure of black and white--its connection to the past.

"The practical ramification for this magazine is that, having now made our position clear and public, we will not widen our editorial scope to include Digital photography. This is not a judgment reflecting on the worth of practitioners of the new ways, but a practical necessity--it?s impossible to please both sides in the same forum.

Rasmussen continues: "However, I will not be shy about expressing an opinion that keeps me in the Conventional fold: In that age-old conflict between change and constancy, Digital represents an element of modern technology while Conventional represents craftsmanship.

"This difference does not produce a watershed when it comes to creativity. It does, however, present a contrast when it comes to the method of reproduction: Digital utilizes a machine, much like a printing press, that places the output on a par with an etching, a lithograph, a poster--works of art that do not qualify as one-off. Regardless, we may from time to time reevaluate our policy, and will keep readers informed of developments in the Digital arena.

"I realize," Rasmussen concludes, "that the subject can be discussed endlessly without converts being won by either side. But I do hope that practitioners of Digital photography will not see our concentration on Conventional photography as a negative comment on their priorities, their integrity, or their creativity--only as a decision in consideration of constancy." (copyright HR/B&W 2002)

Again, I have no idea how Rasmussen feels about using digital at an earlier stage of the process than the printing: for example, a photo that was shot on 4x5 film, scanned and digitally printed as a 16x20 negative, and then printed as a silver contact print.

It?s easy to dismiss Rasmussen as a minority voice of the elite traditional-print collector crowd, of which many photographers are not a part. On the other hand, B&W?s circulation figures indicate that the magazine is reaching a far wider audience than mere collectors (when young photographers ask me what book to buy to aid in learning to see, I suggest they "Buy as many back issues of B&W as you can and just pore over them.") Every time someone in an online forum asks about magazines that go beyond the gadget/celeb variety, B&W is up there near the top among recommendations. So B&W is not without influence in the wider photographic community.

Thoughts? Reflective (as opposed to reflexive) responses especially appreciated.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Jorge Gasteazoro
16-Mar-2002, 13:25
Men Oh Men! How many times are going to rehash this Digital VS Traditional topic on this forum? So one more magazine of the many that are doing digital and/or traditional and digital wants to do only traditional, to my knowledge there are only two, photovision and now B&W, is this supposed to be a big deal? Oh men, I hope Tuan gets rid of this thread!!

Jim Galli
16-Mar-2002, 14:32
Magazines can be a thermometer that tells you where the life cycles of Photography are at. It's interesting to me that this magazine is thriving in spite of what all the others have said "must" happen. Tells me traditional photography is quite alive and well at this point.

I wouldn't want to have to walk the fine line that this fellow is creating for himself. Magazine production is completely dependant on digits these days isn't it. So obviously if someone sends in a nice 11X14 contact, he has to go to the PC and Scanner to get it into the magazine. But that's production, not creation.

Wayne Crider
16-Mar-2002, 15:13
I see quite a few digital mags not featuring convential (film based, enlarger printed) photography.

David Grandy
16-Mar-2002, 20:26
And I can see that every issue this magazine will highlight as treachery the demise of yet another B&W film. I wonder if there were magazines for glass plate photography?

Mike Kravit
17-Mar-2002, 10:47
What is Rasmussen going to do whan he realizes that this years Pulitzer Prize winning image is most likely going to be a digital image?

If he publishes it, his credibility will be reach much lower levels that it just did with his editorial. Lest we forget that a magazine that publishes excellent photographer should be more concerned with the message and less concerned with the capture medium.

Can you say "Egg on your face".

Mike

David A. Goldfarb
17-Mar-2002, 10:56
This year's Pulitzer-prize winning image will probably also be in color, putting it out of the topic of _B&W_ no matter what the medium, so that is hardly relevant. An award winning news photograph would only be of interest if it were available as a collectible print.

If the editor has identified an audience that shares an interest in traditional media, what difference does it make? It's not as if there aren't plenty of venues for digital work. If the magazine were called "Pd/Pt" and only published reproductions of platinum/palladium work, would anyone be bothered?

chris jordan
17-Mar-2002, 17:57
It's clear to me that Rasmussen just doesn't know enough about digital photography. Anyone who is an expert at both digital and darkroom printing recognizes that each medium requires just as much craftsmanship, artistry, painstaking work, etc. I have yet to meet anyone who is an expert at both, who disagrees. My experience is that those who say there is not as much artistry in digital are simply ignorant of the digital medium.

Poor guy, I think he just signed the death certificate for his magazine.

Mike Kravit
17-Mar-2002, 18:09
As a board member of a Photographic Museum I have to say that Rasmussen is being very short sighted and doing his magazine a disservice. We regularly show work by many traditional and digital photographers. When scheduling exhibits we are interested in the artists imagery quality and not necessarily the medium although both certainly need to be of the highest quality.

I can somewhat see the position of a gallery with respect to archival issues (almost), but a magazine? A photographic image is a photographic image despite how it was printed. I am interested in the image if it is brillant, if it was shot with digital capture, or on celluloid it is still a brilliant image.

Mr. Rasmussen needs to open his eyes, and stop smelling the fixer.

Mike

Bill_1856
17-Mar-2002, 19:57
Many of the seminal photographs of the early 20th century, including most of the masterpieces of Paul Strand, are available only as photogravures. Wonder if he will reject them?

Wayne
17-Mar-2002, 20:19
What the hey. Grab nose, dive in.

>I have yet to meet anyone who is an expert at both, who disagrees

Chris- have you ever met an expert at *anything* who was willing to dis his own "craft"? of course not, so this is a meaningless statement.

I'm not trying to dis digital imaging here. however, I think that anyone trying to make the argument that moving one's fingers over mouse and keyboard and running to the Epson as "craftmanship" has their work cut out for them. probably best to focus on other arguments that make it a valid art form.

Michael. There are plenty of places that digital imaging is accepted and welcome. It is NOT the same (though still just as valid) as what we have come to know as photography over 150 years +. THAT fixer aroma is pretty darned obvious, and IMO it only hurts digital to not accept it. The argument that "oh its exactly the same as what you do" isnt working now, and I doubt it ever will.

Daniel Taylor
18-Mar-2002, 00:20
Black and White Magazine is a wonderful publication. Consider its audience though. Collectors and Galleries. The archival argument probably falls flat these days with the new materials and testing, but digital imaging threatens the existing limited-edition model currently in place. The idea of limited printing and value hierarchy within the sequence becomes moot. Or does it? I suppose photographers could print an edition and then delete the files, so perhaps the fact that all prints are identical ruffles the gallery feathers here?

Chris Ellinger
18-Mar-2002, 09:40
I agree with the premise that there is an essential difference between machine m ade objects, and those made one at a time by hand. I see the difference between digital prints and conventional prints to be similar to glassware made from mol ds, and glassware that is made one at a time by hand. Nice to see that there ar e others who perceive this difference.

David Grandy
18-Mar-2002, 14:07
Gee I thought that the idea was to get there, not how difficult the journey was.

Jim Galli
18-Mar-2002, 14:36
= intrinsic value = excellence. ?? These are ideas lost on a generation of instant everything. If everybody can get to the same place in 30 seconds or less by pushing a button, is there any value? Indeed it's the struggle that fine tunes the artisans and stimulates the brain to creativeness. We'll find out soon enough what taking that out of the equation will ultimately produce.

Glenn Kroeger
18-Mar-2002, 14:52
I find it difficult to believe that no digital processes are used in the printing of the magazine?

james mickelson
18-Mar-2002, 17:13
Just a question if I may. How many of you here get Black and White Magazine as a subscription or from the newstand?

Bruce Wehman
18-Mar-2002, 18:31
It's easy to see why collectors might be a little reluctant to embrace Digital: A negative can be destroyed and you can see, by examining the shreds, that it has indeed been destroyed.....Can't do that with Digital.

Steve Gangi
18-Mar-2002, 23:32
What is the big deal? This magazine will fill a niche, and the marketplace will decide its fate. It will specialize in film photography much like "Fly Fisherman" specializes in one form of fishing. Using this comparison, this does not mean that surf fishing or baitcasting are hated by "Fly's" owners. Likewise it does not mean Rasmussen hates digitial. So, if you want to read about digital, you don't buy B&W magazine, just like you don't buy Fly to find out about the latest/fastest bass boat. If you want to read about the latest Fenwick flyrod or where to get a few more Royal Wulffs, "Fly" is the magazine for you. There are already plenty of excellent magazines that cover digital very well. B&W just chooses not to. It's their right to decide what their magazine will cover, it's ridiculous for people who think digital is the "magic bullet" to get so excited just because he does not share their opinion (sounds too much like a mob yelling "Kill the heretic"). Personally, I find it very refreshing and entertaining.

Amadou Diallo
19-Mar-2002, 13:08
The passionate responses to the mag's position, both in print and on this and other online forums suggest that a large portion of B&W's readership are photographers, not collectors. I live in NYC, and digitally outputted prints are becoming more and more common in high- end galleries. When I ask, they tell me their clients care about "who did it" and "what it is", in that order.

If anyone's first thought when seeing an image is whether it's silver, platinum, or digital, the photographer has failed.

Amadou Diallo

Daniel Taylor
19-Mar-2002, 13:30
the thrust behind the magazine and the editorial is money, not photography. sorry to be cynical here, but the incentive appears to be return-on-investment, and art appreciation secondary.

james mickelson
19-Mar-2002, 22:56
Well I have to disagree with you Daniel. Black and White Magazine is the fastest growing photography magazine on the American market today. It doesn't cater to "just" collectors and galleries. But it is about black and white photography from the very beginning of the craft to todays up and coming artists. It is about all the different styles encompassed by traditional photography. It "is" about the image. That is where Henry wants to keep his magazine. If you email him he will discuss the magazine and why he takes the position he does. And he will tell you that he does not dismiss digital photography or image reproduction at all. He merely wants to focus on images made in the traditional way which is how most of the existing photography in galleries and collections was made. He is not debating the status of digital as a new art form. Were an image (it would have to be a portfolio because this is the only way he will accept images) to come to him for review that was digitally shot and reproduced, that was what he thought might be a good article, he probably would include it. But he focuses on traditional photography and photographers. That is his audience. He seems to be doing the right thing for his magazine because it is selling well. And as for galleries and what they will or won't handle, most black and white photography accepted by galleries is traditionally produced with traditional silver or pl/pd. There is a resurrgence of other iron based alt processes too showing up in galleries. Color is now mostly produced as digital prints mainly due to the discontinuance of the dye transfer materials. All this talk of digital vs traditional photography sounds just like the tech wars and canikonolta battles that are fought endlessly on forums like this. Pretty dull reading. But not much discussion is devoted to the why of photography here. How about a little more of that and less "what is better" arguments.

Bob Salomon
20-Mar-2002, 05:48
"fastest growing photography magazine on the American market today"

Total unaudited circulation in over 28 countries = "about" 24,000.

It doesn't appear to be the fastest on the American market for print media.

Terry_2293
20-Mar-2002, 10:30
Bob, can you name some other photography magazines that were only founded in the past three years that are now at the 24,000 level? I can't think of any other photography mags that have grown this fast, but you're probably in a better position to know than I am! Some digital-video magazines, perhaps, but if there are other plain old still photography magazines doing this well, that would be worth noting.

.....

Daniel Taylor
20-Mar-2002, 12:01
As I mentioned, I love the photography in B&W and have every issue. On the front cover of every issue are the words 'Black and White Magazine For Collectors of Fine Photography'. Open the magazine and read the advertisements .. the galleries. The publishers can do what they want of course, but it makes good business sense, to editorialize on your sponsors behalf. It appears not be a digital/traditional argument at all, but simply a wise financial decision when you understand the market you have identified, your niche position, and your identified (and headlined) purpose. If it was truly about the image only, why write this editorial?

Christopher Burkett is my neighbour. He is up at 3:00 every morning laboriously printing his art that commands upwards of $7000/print. Each print has his fingerprints on it, as he says, and I wonder the differences in the art/gallery world if he wrote a batch program to dump hundreds of inkjet prints out while he sleeps, to find them ready to ship when he awakes. I honestly do not know, nor do I care, about the ramifications of that scenario, but if I were a magazine publisher I would certainly understand who feeds me, who bends my ear, and what the motivations are.

It seems the gallery, edition, artist/middleman/client paradigm is a fragile one these days and one in need of adjustment. There are strong forces resisting it.

Michael Feldman
20-Mar-2002, 16:51
There are two kinds of answers to this question, the obvious economics of running a magazine, and the philosophical issues involved with the value of traditional vs. digital photography.

As noted by Daniel, the economic issues are fairly obvious to anyone who picks up B&W Magazine. The bulk of the advertising revenue in B&W Magazine comes from Galleries such as Scott Nichols Gallery (inside front cover and page 1) and J.J. Brookings Gallery (back cover). Most of the other multiage ads are from similar galleries that specialize in high value prints from the masters, in addition to up and coming artists.

You can?t expect a magazine to bite the hand that feeds them. The future revenues of these galleries, not to mention the multimillion- dollar investment in inventory that galleries and museums have made, is threatened by the idea of digital photography, namely that all prints are identical in quality and value. This of course leads to the philosophical discussion about the value of various prints made from the same negative, esthetically and commercially (supply vs. demand).

Soren Kierkegaard posed the following question in the title page of ?Philosophical Fragments?:

?Is an historical point of departure possible for an eternal consciousness; how can such a point of departure have any other than a merely historical interest; is it possible to base an eternal happiness upon historical knowledge.?

In the above quote, Kierkegaard was referring to the historical Jesus, and in this discussion we are referring to the historical knowledge of the print. That is, whether a print made by the photographer nearest to the time that the negative was made, is more valuable than a print made at a later date, or more valuable than a print made by someone else after the photographer has died.

We know that from a purely esthetic point of view, a print made at a later date may actually have more artistic value as the photographer?s experience printing the image and the materials improve over time. A supervised assistant (e.g., Cole Weston) should be able to produce a print just as well after Edward Weston is dead as Cole did when Edward was alive. But we all know how the market values these two prints (both made by Cole) are quite different.

The world of fine art photography (commercial galleries and museums) is completely dependent on making this distinction in historical knowledge in the way it values photographic prints. It depends on the presumption that no two photographic prints are exactly alike, and some vague logic about the intent of photographer being more pure in the expression of their artistic expression nearest to the time that the negative was made. In reality, the earlier prints are usually more scarce (supply vs. demand) which affects the value of the print far more than purely esthetic concerns.

Digital photography, by virtually guaranteeing that every print is identical (even after the death of the photographer), and by the knowledge that exact copies of the digital negative (digital file) may exist somewhere (unlike a conventional negative), throws the entire world of fine art photography asunder. So it is no wonder that the galleries and the museums will do everything they can to make a distinction between convention and digital images.

Bob Salomon
21-Mar-2002, 05:42
:can you name some other photography magazines that were only founded in the past three years that are now at the 24,000 level?:

Since he uses unaudited figures of "about 24000 in 28+ countries" you can not do a comparison as agencies look only at controlled audited ABC figurews. We want to know a reliable # of impressions per ad per market and he is not ststing these figures in a standard, acceptable form.

As for fast growth wiyh aududited figures check Outdoor Photography.

You may or may not like the magazine but they have legitably measured demographics.

Of course the other question with B&W's stated circulation is how many of the "about 24,000" are located in the US specifically (as well as in the other "28" countries and how many of these readers cross over and are readers of other accepted ABC audited publications.

Perhaps he has a total readership that only reaches his publication or perhas he has a readership that can be totally reached by advertising in other poto magazines. If the former, and he can proove it, then he should see a big increase in advertising revenue. If the latter he could experience a total lack of continuing industry advertising as his magazine is not a viable alternative for reaching a large enough base with a low enough cost per impression.

David A. Goldfarb
21-Mar-2002, 13:50
Reality check: In the current issue with the editorial posted above, there is one portfolio by a photographer who prints giclee on watercolor paper. Also a brief news item on someone who does digital composites. I doubt he will stick to such an absolute ban on digital techniques.

james mickelson
22-Mar-2002, 03:29
Bob, if you know of another "photography" magazine, one that deals in traditional photography, that is increasing sales faster than black and white I'd like to know about it. It is the fastest growing magazine in the nation. I didn't say the best selling I said the fastest growing. If you don't like the magazine then that's cool.

james mickelson
22-Mar-2002, 03:41
Bob, check outdoor photographies new subscribers trend. Point made. And outdoor has been around for what? 10 years or so. and I just love these idiotic assumptions that the artist should control the markets. The patron, buying public, determines what a product will sell for. Not the gallery. Many galleries are stuck with merchandise that was over priced and now they have to devalue it and it makes them look bad.

Bob Salomon
22-Mar-2002, 19:48
James,

Who says it is the fastest growing anything?

Not audited is no proof.

It's funny. Right now I am exhibiting at the SPE show in Las Vegas. SPE is the show for photographic teachers and students, primarily at the 4 year level.

At the show they have a large area for photographic magazines and books. You know like Yale Univ. Press, MIT Press, Photo Austria, etc. Apparently while this place is loaded with educators, gallery participants, publishers, etc. There is no indication that B&W even exists.

Asking attendees I have found only one who has even heard of the magazine.

Oh yes, attendance is at least 2500 members of SPE as of the latest count.

Ole Tjugen
23-Mar-2002, 00:10
There are specialist digital photography magazines. There are specialist wooden boat magazines. There are specialist quilting magazines. There are specialist flyfishing magazines. Why not a specialist B&W analog photography magazine?

About time, if you ask me.

james mickelson
23-Mar-2002, 09:46
Interesting Bob. I talk with hundreds of photographers in my travels around the southwestern US and almost everyone of them has heard of Black and White and Lenswork magazines. Both at PhotoLA and PhotoSF this year the magazine was the talk of the event. Now if you don't like the magazine then don't buy it.

Freelancer
25-Nov-2006, 13:04
Its His Magazine, he can put what he wants and what he does not want in it.
Way to go, BW magazine.

paulr
25-Nov-2006, 13:40
He can use whatever editorial restrictions he likes. But his essay shows that he's not exactly a philosopher.

The dichotomy of "modern technology" vs. "craftsmanship" is a thigh slapper.

As if you must choose one over the other.

It's a good argument against ever buying one of those new fangled oil paintings. Personally, I'm only interesting in craftsmanship, like in frescoes, or charcoal scratchings on cave walls.


Does any of it matter? even though digging in their heels against change will exclude a lot of work (including a lot of mine), I think it's a sign that cottage industries and niche groups can passionately keep things alive in the face of broader changes.

A policy like this is basically saying "the world may change but we won't." It's one of two possible reactions when the thing you do stops being mainstream. Since most people embrace the change, those who refuse to do it actually serve the world by preserving more choices. Even if they can seem cranky and out of touch when they issue their manifestos.

The danger is that they can push themselves faster towards being perceived as irrelevent. Not because they accept only traditional media, but because suddenly their whole self-imposed definition is about something technical and superficial, rather than something artistically substantive.

Ole Tjugen
25-Nov-2006, 13:50
Why did this thread suddenly reemerge after 4 years?

Has there been new developments?

tim atherton
25-Nov-2006, 14:03
Its His Magazine, he can put what he wants and what he does not want in it.
Way to go, BW magazine.

err - old old thread - I seem to recall he backtracked and accepted digital?

robc
25-Nov-2006, 14:20
Why did this thread suddenly reemerge after 4 years?

Has there been new developments?

don't you mean bleach and redevelopment ;)

Marko
25-Nov-2006, 15:13
Why did this thread suddenly reemerge after 4 years?

Has there been new developments?

But of course there have been new develpments! To mention just a few:

- Two major versions of Photoshop were developed since then.

- Most of the medium format film camera companies went out of business.

- Nikon stopped production of film cameras.

- Kodak stopped production of traditional B&W papers.

- Agfa went out of business altogether.

If nothing else, it might be really amusing to find out how good some decisions and/or predictions made a few years ago turned out to be.

:D

Maris Rusis
25-Nov-2006, 15:41
I wish the oxymoron "digital photographs" would go away. It is just as dumb as square circles or four sided triangles. Digital pictures are going to be the dominant form of highly mimetic illustration for a long time to come but they (and lots of other things) are cleanly distinct from photography.

The universe of image making divides itself into two distinct classes; those images that are fabricated from text and those images that are formed by direct physical contact with subject matter. The term "text" is invoked, in its post-modern sense, as any narrative or description of anything real or imaginary. Typical text based images are oil paintings, drawings, inkjet prints, etchings, and digital pictures. Typical physical images include foot prints, shadows, photographs, plaster casts, brass rubbings where the subject matter needs to be physically present or the image cannot be made.

If B&W chooses to eschew text based images in favour of photographs I say good on them. If I want to see digital pictures virtually any other magazine on any subject will give me all I could ever want.

Mark Sawyer
25-Nov-2006, 16:14
With nearly every other photography magazine being dominated by digital content, I'm deeply offended that one magazine might offer an alternative...

Either that, or I might subscribe...

tim atherton
25-Nov-2006, 16:54
I wish the oxymoron "digital photographs" would go away.

hate to disappoint you, but it isn't going away.

If B&W chooses to eschew text based images in favour of photographs I say good on them. If I want to see digital pictures virtually any other magazine on any subject will give me all I could ever want

they haven't as far as I recall - they accept and publish digital as well as analog/traditional

Marko
25-Nov-2006, 19:30
The universe of image making divides itself into two distinct classes; those images that are fabricated from text and those images that are formed by direct physical contact with subject matter.

An image is an image. How it was made is utterly unimportant as long as the result is a good image. Come to think of it, how it was made matters even less if the image is bad.

So, the logical conclusion is that how an image is made is important only for mediocre images. And by extension to mediocre image crafters.

paulr
25-Nov-2006, 19:40
The universe of image making divides itself into two distinct classes; those images that are fabricated from text and those images that are formed by direct physical contact with subject matter. The term "text" is invoked, in its post-modern sense, as any narrative or description of anything real or imaginary. Typical text based images are oil paintings, drawings, inkjet prints, etchings, and digital pictures. Typical physical images include foot prints, shadows, photographs, plaster casts, brass rubbings where the subject matter needs to be physically present or the image cannot be made.

These are all made up definitions. I sense that you were smoking something a little too strong last time you picked up a book of semiotics.

Anyone who calls a painting a text would likewise call a photograph a text. And it would be for reasons unrelated to how they were made.

The differences are that a painting would be considered an iconic or symbolic text, while a photograph would be an indexical text. And, I'm sorry to say, the indexical nature of the medium is the same whether the image was captured with silver salts or silicon chips. It's the same basic phenomenon.

There are many things you can do with light sensitive chemicals that aren't photography (painting with light and developers, etc., like the work Anne McDonald does in her mural installations) so the use of traditional photographic materials doesn't make something a photograph.

At any rate, philosophical mutterings aside, the curators of the world's top collections and the art historians and the major dealers have voted long ago, and the overwhelming consensus it that digital media represent just a few among thousands technical evolutions in the history of photography. And there will be many more in the future, some of which will probably make the birth of digital seem pretty minor in hindsight.

roteague
25-Nov-2006, 19:56
An image is an image. How it was made is utterly unimportant as long as the result is a good image. Come to think of it, how it was made matters even less if the image is bad.

Not everyone feels that way. I don't.

Peter Lewin
25-Nov-2006, 20:51
"An image is an image. How it was made is utterly unimportant as long as the result is a good image. Come to think of it, how it was made matters even less if the image is bad."
Couldn't disagree more - how an image is made does make a difference; it is up to the viewer or purchaser how significant that difference is. There is an art gallery in New Hope, PA, co-owned (I believe) by a painter and a "technician." The oil original is scanned, and glicee (ok, inkjet) prints are produced for sale. The prints are $85, the original, if for sale at all, is about $5000. Same image, but the medium sure makes a difference. I bought two of the prints, because I liked the images, and they look fine on my wall, but I would never argue that how the final print is made is unimportant. I was also recently looking at a photographer's website, and prints were available either as silver prints, or as inkjet; they were priced differently, again indicating that "the market" believes that how the final product is made is significant. As a last example, if you look at the recent photo auctions (the major houses had auctions about a month ago or so), I'm not sure whether any images were included other than "wet prints" (i.e. silver, platinum, colloidal, etc.); I would be interested if anyone knows of any digital prints at those auctions, and if so, how they were priced relative to traditional photographs. So going back to the original discussions of whether B&W's stance to reject digital work was justified, it is a question of how they define the market of photo collectors for whom they state the magazine is primarily produced. (Interestingly I think the B&W magazine argument is really about how the final print is made, rather than how the image was captured. If the image was captured digitally, converted to a negative - or via digital enlarger - and the final product is a silver, pt/pd, etc. print, I'm not sure that there would be the same "digital vs. traditional" argument.)

Ted Harris
25-Nov-2006, 20:55
I'm not so sure that the market cares as much as we think it does. I discussed this point with a lot of gallery owners at Photo LA in January and left with the distinct feeling that the market cares a lot less than many of us do.

Jim collum
25-Nov-2006, 21:04
If the image was captured digitally, converted to a negative - or via digital enlarger - and the final product is a silver, pt/pd, etc. print, I'm not sure that there would be the same "digital vs. traditional" argument.)

unfortunately, that same argument is made for an image printed via analog means, but created digitally.

unless the image has been captured via film and (not or), the print has been produced via analog means (not lightjet, but either a handmade alternative process or chemically processed paper exposed with an enlarger), it's not a photograph.. it's a pixelgraph. Both must apply for it to actually be a photograph (not my definiation, btw.. i could care less one way or another... but those are the definitions of the analog camp

jim

Marko
25-Nov-2006, 21:10
"An image is an image. How it was made is utterly unimportant as long as the result is a good image. Come to think of it, how it was made matters even less if the image is bad."
Couldn't disagree more - how an image is made does make a difference; it is up to the viewer or purchaser how significant that difference is. There is an art gallery in New Hope, PA, co-owned (I believe) by a painter and a "technician." The oil original is scanned, and glicee (ok, inkjet) prints are produced for sale. The prints are $85, the original, if for sale at all, is about $5000. Same image, but the medium sure makes a difference.

I am sure you wouldn't pay anything for a bad image, medium notwithstanding. I know that I wouldn't pay anything even for a mediocre image.

It is only natural that different media carry different price tags, but that becomes relevant only after the distinction has already been made.

Finally, the act of printing an image does not equate creating an image, it is only the last step in the process. And a step that the original artist does not even have to take him/her-self and still be considered an author.

tim atherton
25-Nov-2006, 21:11
[QUOTE=Peter Lewin;197170\ As a last example, if you look at the recent photo auctions (the major houses had auctions about a month ago or so), I'm not sure whether any images were included other than "wet prints" (i.e. silver, platinum, colloidal, etc.); I would be interested if anyone knows of any digital prints at those auctions, and if so, how they were priced relative to traditional photographs. .)[/QUOTE]

Depends what you call "digital prints"? But C-prints from digital files - 8 or 9 Gursky's this month at one auction I noticed - between $60,000 and $800,000 each I think. (not b&w of course - but that matters little for this particular point)

Jerzy Pawlowski
25-Nov-2006, 22:25
An image is an image. How it was made is utterly unimportant as long as the result is a good image. Come to think of it, how it was made matters even less if the image is bad.
I think we are talking/writing here only about good images, who cares about bad ones.
In addition to an image there is also "art hardware" (paper, ink, emulsion, and canvas and paint for painters) and handling (manual or computerized). At this point I can see difference between traditional and digital. Apart from archival issue which becomes negligible, there is very important difference in uniqueness of the "hardware" and artist input combination. I know very well how much time has to be spend to prepare good image to be printed digitaly, but then we all know it becomes just computer print out, once ready then anybody having same printer and supplies can push button. To produce wet print that can be recognized as an art piece (just print, not image) one has to have knowledge and skills, and can not make large production. This I think will make different prices and will make difference for collectors and museums, and will keep strict analog process alive for long time.
Obviously for editirial or advertising analog will not make sense in future, it is like buying horses for a moving company.
Similar issue affected illustrators in 90s. These were very highly skilled artists producing everything manualy and original work of an ad was often subject of high prices as a painting. Today 99&#37; of illustration is created on computers, and I do not think anybody would buy computer generated print as an original. However money is spent on oils or acrylics on canvas.

paulr
25-Nov-2006, 23:56
As a last example, if you look at the recent photo auctions (the major houses had auctions about a month ago or so), I'm not sure whether any images were included other than "wet prints" (i.e. silver, platinum, colloidal, etc.); I would be interested if anyone knows of any digital prints at those auctions, and if so, how they were priced relative to traditional photographs.

Here are just a few examples:

Sotheby's London
November 14, 2006

Gregory Crewdson
digital c-print
2,160 BP (4,153 US$)

Annie Leibovitz
iris print
6,600 BP (12,692 US$)

Bert Stern
inkjet print
4,560 BP (8,769 US$)

Bert Stern
inkjet print
3,600 BP (6,923 US$)

Bert Stern
inkjet print
6,240 BP (12,000 US$)

Bert Stern
inkjet print
2,880 BP (5,538 US$)

Bert Stern
inkjet print
3,840 BP (7,384 US$)

Bert Stern
inkjet print
5,040 BP (9,692 US$)

Wolfgang Tillmans
inkjet print
8,400 BP (16,153 US$)



Phillips, de Pury & Company
october 19, 2006

Chris Jordan
pigment inkjet print, mntd
9,600 US$



Christie's New York
Oct 18 2006

Chuck Close
digital inkjet print
7,200 US$

Gregory Crewdson
digital chromogenic print
4,560 US$

Shirin Neshat
digital inkjet print
5,040 US$

Most of the work at these auctions was vintage, and so cost more. There were some artists who had both analog and digital work in the same auction; prices were fairly close. Much of the contemporary work was just called "c-print" or some variation ... which as Tim points out, is ambiguous as to whether it's printed from a file or from film.

As usual, the best advice if you want to sell work for big money is to be famous and to be dead.

Jim collum
26-Nov-2006, 00:19
Here are just a few examples:

Chris Jordan
pigment inkjet print, mntd
9,600 US$


As usual, the best advice if you want to sell work for big money is to be famous and to be dead.

congrats Chris!!! you've made the former!

jim

Peter Lewin
26-Nov-2006, 08:18
Here are just a few examples:

Sotheby's London
November 14, 2006

Annie Leibovitz
iris print
6,600 BP (12,692 US$)

Bert Stern
inkjet print
6,240 BP (12,000 US$)

Much of the contemporary work was just called "c-print" or some variation ... which as Tim points out, is ambiguous as to whether it's printed from a file or from film.

First, Paulr & Tim, thanks for both giving me a better definition of what constitutes digital (including the ambiguous "c-prints") and for researching the auction results. I couldn't figure out how to do that on-line after the auctions had been held, i.e. I could view the catalog on-line prior to the auction, or the results by lot number afterwards, but couldn't put the two together.
The question which I find interesting, now that I see that the final output of the image is not as much a deciding factor as I had expected, relates to the Leibovitz, and especially the Bert Stern prints: do you know if they were digital captures, or digital output from scanned negatives? Since many of Bert Stern's best known images predate digital (& were originally printed by hand), I wondered if a later scan and inkjet print commanded the high price you showed, which would really prove that the production method is almost irrelevant (at least for living artists!).

paulr
26-Nov-2006, 09:50
congrats Chris!!! you've made the former!

jim

haha ... yes, famous gets you the Pretty Big Money (like, around ten times what anyone's ever paid for my work). famous and dead ... or ocasionally, famous and ultra-fashionable ... gets you the Real Big Money. like, ten times more even than that.

paulr
26-Nov-2006, 10:00
I couldn't figure out how to do that on-line after the auctions had been held, i.e. I could view the catalog on-line prior to the auction, or the results by lot number afterwards, but couldn't put the two together.

http://www.artnet.com/net/publicauctionlist.aspx


do you know if they were digital captures, or digital output from scanned negatives? Since many of Bert Stern's best known images predate digital (& were originally printed by hand), I wondered if a later scan and inkjet print commanded the high price you showed, which would really prove that the production method is almost irrelevant (at least for living artists!).

I'm not sure what these prints were ... there isn't much information on the auction site. In general, later editions get significantly less money than early editions, no matter how they're printed.

I didn't notice anyone selling a late edition of digital work at all. My guess is that people selling these are doing so as a money making venture for the estate, typically producing big editions (I saw some very non-vintage platinum prints of Paul Strand images printed in editions of 100). I suspect one reason they avoid digital output for these because they're trying to create as strong a sense of authenticity as possible. The print is already modern, so to create a sense of value they use as vintage a process as they can.

Marko
26-Nov-2006, 13:09
I think we are talking/writing here only about good images, who cares about bad ones.

That was a reply to Maris' claim that "digital" images are not images at all but some sort of text. Or something like that.


In addition to an image there is also "art hardware" (paper, ink, emulsion, and canvas and paint for painters) and handling (manual or computerized). At this point I can see difference between traditional and digital. Apart from archival issue which becomes negligible, there is very important difference in uniqueness of the "hardware" and artist input combination. I know very well how much time has to be spend to prepare good image to be printed digitaly, but then we all know it becomes just computer print out, once ready then anybody having same printer and supplies can push button. To produce wet print that can be recognized as an art piece (just print, not image) one has to have knowledge and skills, and can not make large production. This I think will make different prices and will make difference for collectors and museums, and will keep strict analog process alive for long time.
Obviously for editirial or advertising analog will not make sense in future, it is like buying horses for a moving company.
Similar issue affected illustrators in 90s. These were very highly skilled artists producing everything manualy and original work of an ad was often subject of high prices as a painting. Today 99% of illustration is created on computers, and I do not think anybody would buy computer generated print as an original. However money is spent on oils or acrylics on canvas.

It all comes down (again!) to the old question of whether the art of photography lies in the image or in the print.

My opinion is that photography, "writing with light", is primarily about the image and that is the art part. The print, important as it is, represent just one of the possible ways to show the image itself. Yes, the medium used determines the price, just like with any other art, but the print itself is essentially a craft, not an art.

There are examples, if I am not mistaken, of great photographers having master printers doing their prints for them, but the resulting photographs are still attributed to photographers and not the printers.

Bottom line: photography will be photography, whatever the medium of the day could be. Digital just happens to be the latest and most current one.

David Luttmann
26-Nov-2006, 13:16
I wish the oxymoron "digital photographs" would go away. It is just as dumb as square circles or four sided triangles. Digital pictures are going to be the dominant form of highly mimetic illustration for a long time to come but they (and lots of other things) are cleanly distinct from photography.

The universe of image making divides itself into two distinct classes; those images that are fabricated from text and those images that are formed by direct physical contact with subject matter. The term "text" is invoked, in its post-modern sense, as any narrative or description of anything real or imaginary. Typical text based images are oil paintings, drawings, inkjet prints, etchings, and digital pictures. Typical physical images include foot prints, shadows, photographs, plaster casts, brass rubbings where the subject matter needs to be physically present or the image cannot be made.

If B&W chooses to eschew text based images in favour of photographs I say good on them. If I want to see digital pictures virtually any other magazine on any subject will give me all I could ever want.


There is no Oxymoron involved. The roots for the definition of Photograph extend much further back then the often quoted period in the 1800's during Photographys infancy. The term "Photo" comes from the Greek meaning "Light. "Graphy" comes from the Latin "graphia" meaning to write. The true definition of Photography is "To write with Light." There is NO preference for the method. An image captured with digital gear or film are both referred to as photographs. The ONLY reason some dictionaries mention the chemical process as for the last 150 years, that has been the only method. That has changed, and thus, so has the definition.

paulr
26-Nov-2006, 13:47
The ONLY reason some dictionaries mention the chemical process as for the last 150 years, that has been the only method. That has changed, and thus, so has the definition.

It would be interesting to dig up dictionary definitions of photography from the last hundred and fifty years. The earliest ones might only included daguerotypes or salted paper prints (depending on if it's a French or English dictionary!) ...

Later ones would include more, but probably only monochrome processes.

Gordon Moat
26-Nov-2006, 13:59
A quick search of auction results indicates that older images were used for the prints of some still living photographers, such as Annie Leibovitz. Interestingly enough, less than a year ago someone posted to PDN Forums that she still uses RZ67 cameras for most of her work. It might be notible that images containing famous people could be part of the reasoning behind the values of some photographers older works, regardless of how they are printed.

My personal view tends to be more strict: only the piece (frame) of film is the original photograph. Anything after that is a reproduction, whether chemically produced or otherwise. Making it a point to indicate that no computers were used for one's prints is admirable, though I consider it another form of marketing. I can enjoy a book of photographic images just as well as I can enjoy large framed prints; I consider all those as photographs, even if I might enjoy seeing the framed prints more than the books. Also, considering my budget, photographic books and magazines are more accessible to me than the fine framed prints of others.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Jerzy Pawlowski
26-Nov-2006, 14:04
That was a reply to Maris' claim that "digital" images are not images at all but some sort of text. Or something like that.
Marko, Sorry I misunderstood. When I saw image/text issue I did not bother to read further.
Basicaly I agree with you. What I wanted to mention is that it is not an image or art but final "product" that can, but does not have to, make difference for a group of people. This may cause different prices and recognition, similar as difference between Pt/Pd and silver paper. Art is independed on tools. I am the person that appreciates even layout of a book that I am reading or good design of magazine, however someone else may say: who cares, important is only what writer has to say.

Oren Grad
26-Nov-2006, 14:15
It would be interesting to dig up dictionary definitions of photography from the last hundred and fifty years. The earliest ones might only included daguerotypes or salted paper prints (depending on if it's a French or English dictionary!) ...

Later ones would include more, but probably only monochrome processes.

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition, 1972:

"The art or process of producing images of objects upon a photosensitive surface (as film in a camera) by the chemical action of light or other radiant energy."

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000:

"The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces."

Merriam-Webster Online, as of today:

"The art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (as film or a CCD chip)."

Cambridge Dictionary of American English, online, as of today:

"An image of a person, object, or view that is produced by using a camera and film."

Compact Oxford English Dictionary, online, as of today:

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

Paulr, I'm sure that if one pursued this to the end it would be possible to tell an interesting story about how lexicography responds to changes in technology and culture, and especially about what determines the lag before a new definition is accepted.

paulr
26-Nov-2006, 15:26
I can enjoy a book of photographic images just as well as I can enjoy large framed prints; I consider all those as photographs, even if I might enjoy seeing the framed prints more than the books. Also, considering my budget, photographic books and magazines are more accessible to me than the fine framed prints of others.

A lot of people (John Szarkowsky among them) have suggested that the book is really the ideal and purest form of photographic reproduction. Books take the reproduceability and democratic affordability of the medium to their logical conclusion, while still being capable of beautiful quality. They're also an ideal format for presenting a body of work, since the artist has complete control over presentation, sequencing, and the relationship of the images to each other and to any text.

There's also a wide range of possibilities for books, spanning cheap mass-produced paperbacks to small edition artists books, which are basically editioned portfolios in the form of a codex.

It's been noted that the photo book is almost as old as photography itself, predating most of the printing processes and conventions that are in use today.

Maris Rusis
26-Nov-2006, 22:00
It is a common error to dissect the word photography into photo with a root meaning of "light" and -graphy meaning "writing". The error continues with putting the two together again and arriving at photography = writing with light. It is not.

Students, authorities, dictionary publishers, and lexicographers have made and continue to make the same mistake and it is all through reading each others work and through lack of fundamental original research. I have more spare time than they do and I can study the subject harder.

Here are some solidly checkable facts. The word photography has no deep history in the English language. It has not drifted in from Anglo-Saxon or medieval English or anywhere else. It sprang into existence at an exact time and place and is the personal invention of one man. It is a made-up word, a neologism. And it is still archived in its actual handwriting the first time it was put on paper. This fully traceable history is unusual for any word in any language.

I am looking at a facsimile (the original is utterly precious) of handwritten lecture notes by John Herschel for a presentation he was to give at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. The first line reads "(1) 13 leaves". The second to the sixth lines read: "Note on the use of Photography or the application of the chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation, by Sir John Herschel. Read 14 march 1839 by Sir J.F.W.Herschel Bsc KH. VPRS.

There you have it! The invention and first time use of a word. The hand writing is not all good and the parts of the above paragraph in italics are vague and look like attempted erasures or glosses.

What is significant is that Photography is clearly and deliberately written with a capital P. Herschel, a highly disciplined scientist, intended Photography to be the proper name (like a persons individual name) for a particular process and he even spelled out what the process was. Again: "the application of the chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation". That is what photography is and if something is not just that then it is not photography at all.

Ordinary words shift meaning in living languages but it is a semantic absolute that proper names do not drift in their reference over time. For example "George W. Bush" will never legitimately become "Dwight Eisenhower" however much lazy usage prevails over any amount of time; same with Photography. In spite of the tide of uninformed opinion applying Photography to things that merely look like photographs it will always be possible to go back to the proper name and confirm what it stands for.

"Digital photographs" truly is an oxymoron and an egregious and pernicious one at that.

Don't take my word for all this. Check the research yourself.

Oren Grad
26-Nov-2006, 22:16
In spite of the tide of uninformed opinion applying Photography to things that merely look like photographs it will always be possible to go back to the proper name and confirm what it stands for.

If it is indeed a tide, the lexicographers will follow. That's their job.

Jim Ewins
26-Nov-2006, 22:21
Not a problem for me. I love the images in B&W, but the hype turns me off. There is Phototech and View.

Marko
26-Nov-2006, 22:51
The word photography has no deep history in the English language. It has not drifted in from Anglo-Saxon or medieval English

Of course not. It is a compound of two Attic-Greek words. Just like Philosophy, Geometry or Democracy. Or myriad other commonly used words in English, French or most other European languages.

You're not trying to say that the term is invalid because it is not English in origin, are you?

BTW, sir William was a great scientist, but he also believed that the Sun was inhabited...

Frank Petronio
26-Nov-2006, 23:15
I find it ironic that so many self-proclaimed environmentalists/photographers would fall all over themselves to get into B&W magazine. Why? The highly toxic metallic inks they use throughout the magazine. The idiots who design and produce the rag should have to do their own Superfund site's clean-up. I don't even like touching the damn thing.

It's also hideously illegible -- tiny type, glossy metallics -- you might just as well just buy a roll of tin foil and try to read that in the bathroom.

Struan Gray
27-Nov-2006, 03:34
It would be interesting to dig up dictionary definitions of photography from the last hundred and fifty years.

Ambrose Bierce's definition of a photograph is dated by its racism, but the first sentence has the ring of truth:

"A picture painted by the sun without instruction in art."

"Picture" isn't bad either:

"A representation in two dimensions of something wearisome in three."

But my favourite is this:

"A thought that snores in words that smoke."

from "Platitude"

paulr
27-Nov-2006, 08:23
It is a common error to dissect the word photography into photo with a root meaning of "light" and -graphy meaning "writing".

The real error is the assumption that the meanings of words do not evolve.

Consider words like "computer" (first known use in 1646), "car" (first known use 1301), "satellite" (first known use 1548), "television" (first known use 1907).

It's also extremely common for neologisms and coinages to become standardized as part of formal language ... and for their definitions to evolve just like any other.

If you talk to people like curators and art historians, they're typically hesitant to offer a fixed definition that they abide by, since history shows how malleable and fast growing photography has always been. But when they do talk, their concerns are usually more conceptual than etymological or process oriented. In other words, specific natures of processes, and origins of words, are less important than more fundamental defining qualities.

The defining qualities usually have to do with fixing an image that's captured directly from nature. This is what sets photography apart from other media, and in that context, the exact material that captures the image, or the means by which the image is stored or printed or displayed become much smaller concerns.

cyrus
27-Nov-2006, 10:18
At the risk of reviving this issue, digital photography and analog photography are simply two different art forms that have different characteristics. The process of creating an analog image is part of the resultant image's inherent qualities, and is a factor that some people appreciate. Call it nostalgia value or whatever, but in a highly digitized world, there is a demand for the sense of "old-fashioned craftsmanship" that is associated with film photography, and this is a selling point. And yes, there is such an association. Think of sculpture - if you were a wealthy art-buyer, which would you prefer: a scuplture that was made by a C&C machine, or one that was carved by a sculptor? Or watches - which is considered to be a "classier" watch - an analog watch or a digital one? Even if the digital watch or the C&C created sculpture are just as good or better in all aspects than an analog one - better in performance, accuracy etc - people still prefer the "old fashioned" one. Why? Because it is precisely the "old fashioned"-ness that is a selling point.

In any case, just as photography did not supplant painting or stone lithography as an art form, there's no reason to assume that digital photography will supplant film - and also, there's no reason to assume that a magazine dedicated solely to film photography will lose out. Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, the characteristics of digital photography that some like (cheaper, easier, manipulable, more widely available and "doable") will work against it in the art world, where the exact opposite characteristics are appreciated more. That's why I think there will be a boom in demand for "real" film photographs. Indeed, I think that the digital still image is going to evolve itself out of existence as the technology to display the image has reached a point where it is just as easy to diplay a moving image rather than a still image.

paulr
27-Nov-2006, 10:38
At the risk of reviving this issue, digital photography and analog photography are simply two different art forms that have different characteristics.

I'm curious to know what the different characteristics are, and what makes them fundamental enough to consider the two types of process different art forms.

David Luttmann
27-Nov-2006, 11:04
It is a common error to dissect the word photography into photo with a root meaning of "light" and -graphy meaning "writing". The error continues with putting the two together again and arriving at photography = writing with light. It is not.

Students, authorities, dictionary publishers, and lexicographers have made and continue to make the same mistake and it is all through reading each others work and through lack of fundamental original research. I have more spare time than they do and I can study the subject harder.

Here are some solidly checkable facts. The word photography has no deep history in the English language. It has not drifted in from Anglo-Saxon or medieval English or anywhere else. It sprang into existence at an exact time and place and is the personal invention of one man. It is a made-up word, a neologism. And it is still archived in its actual handwriting the first time it was put on paper. This fully traceable history is unusual for any word in any language.

I am looking at a facsimile (the original is utterly precious) of handwritten lecture notes by John Herschel for a presentation he was to give at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. The first line reads "(1) 13 leaves". The second to the sixth lines read: "Note on the use of Photography or the application of the chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation, by Sir John Herschel. Read 14 march 1839 by Sir J.F.W.Herschel Bsc KH. VPRS.

There you have it! The invention and first time use of a word. The hand writing is not all good and the parts of the above paragraph in italics are vague and look like attempted erasures or glosses.

What is significant is that Photography is clearly and deliberately written with a capital P. Herschel, a highly disciplined scientist, intended Photography to be the proper name (like a persons individual name) for a particular process and he even spelled out what the process was. Again: "the application of the chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation". That is what photography is and if something is not just that then it is not photography at all.

Ordinary words shift meaning in living languages but it is a semantic absolute that proper names do not drift in their reference over time. For example "George W. Bush" will never legitimately become "Dwight Eisenhower" however much lazy usage prevails over any amount of time; same with Photography. In spite of the tide of uninformed opinion applying Photography to things that merely look like photographs it will always be possible to go back to the proper name and confirm what it stands for.

"Digital photographs" truly is an oxymoron and an egregious and pernicious one at that.

Don't take my word for all this. Check the research yourself.



Maris,

And just where do you think Herschel obtained the word? From the Latin & Greek I'm afraid. As well, the chemical refers to the light itself and not the substrate it is recorded upon. This does of course change nothing. Had light been recorded on CCD chips back then, he still would have referred to it as Photography.....writing with light.

Jim collum
27-Nov-2006, 11:13
At the risk of reviving this issue, digital photography and analog photography are simply two different art forms that have different characteristics.

I suspect this issue will be debated for a long time.. but only among a very few people.

The reality is, digital and film photography are seen by the commercial and fine art market as being photography. They're also being seen as being of equal value in the minds of the majority of commercial customers, as well as gallery/museum curators and art collectors. There is very little chance of that changing, and the desire to change it is only from an extremely small percentage of people.

cyrus
27-Nov-2006, 11:59
I'm curious to know what the different characteristics are, and what makes them fundamental enough to consider the two types of process different art forms.

Well for one thing, one requires a darkroom and the other requires a printer! :)

paulr
27-Nov-2006, 12:01
Well for one thing, one requires a darkroom and the other requires a printer! :)

is that really a different characteristic? enough to suggest one working method has different capabilities or represents a fundamentally different way of representing the world?

Jim collum
27-Nov-2006, 12:01
Well for one thing, one requires a darkroom and the other requires a printer! :)

and both require the simple pressing of a button to produce a print :) (ok.. maybe sometimes a foot switch)

paulr
27-Nov-2006, 12:02
I suspect this issue will be debated for a long time.. but only among a very few people.

The reality is, digital and film photography are seen by the commercial and fine art market as being photography. They're also being seen as being of equal value in the minds of the majority of commercial customers, as well as gallery/museum curators and art collectors. There is very little chance of that changing, and the desire to change it is only from an extremely small percentage of people.

This describes the reaction to just about every other evolution or change in the history of the medium.

Jorge Gasteazoro
27-Nov-2006, 14:49
and both require the simple pressing of a button to produce a print :) (ok.. maybe sometimes a foot switch)

:rolleyes:

Marko
27-Nov-2006, 15:03
Well for one thing, one requires a darkroom and the other requires a printer! :)

A printer would be an equivalent of the darkroom with only the wet side, but no enlarger (or contact frame).

If you want it to produce an image, you still need a computer. Or the old fashioned thingy where you stick the negative on one end, the paper on the other and then you wave with a piece of cardboard in between... :rolleyes:

cyrus
27-Nov-2006, 15:33
and both require the simple pressing of a button to produce a print :) (ok.. maybe sometimes a foot switch)

Really? I spend hours and hours in my darkroom trying to get a print to come out the way I want. What are you doing that I'm not?

Digital and analog photography These are just not the same. Not the process, nor the end result, nor the perception of the qualities of each.

David Luttmann
27-Nov-2006, 15:41
A printer would be an equivalent of the darkroom with only the wet side, but no enlarger (or contact frame).

If you want it to produce an image, you still need a computer. Or the old fashioned thingy where you stick the negative on one end, the paper on the other and then you wave with a piece of cardboard in between... :rolleyes:

I'm sure some will argue which cardboard works best. I for one found cutouts from Big Mac boxes offered better detail to the image that standard cardboard can't match. I've now graduated to the burn & dodge tools in PS for infinitely more control. :)

paulr
27-Nov-2006, 15:56
Really? I spend hours and hours in my darkroom trying to get a print to come out the way I want. What are you doing that I'm not?

Digital and analog photography These are just not the same. Not the process, nor the end result, nor the perception of the qualities of each.

You are still describing details. Bigger than the difference between, say, one type of gelatin silver paper and another, but smaller than truly major shifts in technology that changed the way photography presented the world (like the invention of the hand camera, or color film). And much bigger than the truly revolutionary shifts--like the invention of photography in the first place.

I can think of only a SINGLE substantive change brought about with digital media. That is the existence of the disembodied image. With a digital image, you have an image that is separated from physical media in a way that is much more distinct than with any analog medium. So we have files that can be viewed on a screen, printed many different ways, transmitted instantly, etc. etc.

Everything else I've seen cited as a unique quality of digital photography has precedent in the analog world. Including ability to be manipulated by hand, the ability to be printed in ink (or other non-light sensitive media), the ability to be reproduced mechanically, etc. etc.

Jim collum
27-Nov-2006, 15:58
Really? I spend hours and hours in my darkroom trying to get a print to come out the way I want. What are you doing that I'm not?

Digital and analog photography These are just not the same. Not the process, nor the end result, nor the perception of the qualities of each.


this debate goes back and forth, never really coming to any conclusion.

i spend hours in the darkroom as well.. but once i have that print the way i want it 'for now', i can print many copies a lot quicker.. with the goal being that any subsequent prints are identical as much as possible. i come back in a week, with the same print in mind.. and it probably doesn't take as long as the first one did.. i already have it mapped out. i have contrast masks made already, color masks, a diagram for dodging and burning, with the appropriate development and exposure times, with the correct grade paper. Print #1= many hours, print#2-100 *much* quicker.. in reality.. not much more than going thru the motions and pushing a button. This is exactly what happens when i print digitally. print # 1 takes hours of work, print #2-100, much quicker. 10 years later, i look at the print. want something different, and start over with print#1 again. (for both digital and film).

the reason for the 'just a push of a button' statement is the most common arguement i see against digital is that all you have to do is push a button. .that there's nothing else involved. in that sense, that would be true of film as well.

the whole thing seems pretty silly. alt-proces people feel silver printers have it easy (they don't coat their own paper or mix their own chemicals!!), dye transfer doesn't even use light sensitive materials to produce the final print.. they use *ink* .. so they can't be photographs at all.

all in all , it really doesn't matter to the vast majority of people who take, hire, publish, buy, collect photographs. (that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to some... ). for the rest of the world, a digital photograph is a photograph. an inkjet print can command prices equal to similar prints created chemically.

unless you coat your own film, build your own camera/enlarger, coat your own paper, mix your own chemicals from scratch.. there's automation involved. does the amount of physcial activity make film more involved than digital? when i set up a 4x5 and expose using a scanning back.. there's a *lot* more activity going on than i've ever had when shooting film from the same camera.

Jim collum
27-Nov-2006, 16:04
... as a point though, i do use film for specific purposes.. based on the nature of the analog process itself.. it's much better at very wide latitude images than almost all digital (but not all. the scanning back technology is pretty equivalent to film in latitude). i like the way that certain film/dev combinations compress the tonal range. I love the way a platinum print looks (and as a result, most of my work is Pt). grain doesn't bother me (in fact, in most cases i add 'grain' to images.. i don't like the pure continuous tone i get with my digital.. in life, there seems to be a background 'grain/detail' that i don't get with a noiseless digital image).

Marko
27-Nov-2006, 16:50
I'm sure some will argue which cardboard works best. I for one found cutouts from Big Mac boxes offered better detail to the image that standard cardboard can't match. I've now graduated to the burn & dodge tools in PS for infinitely more control. :)

Yeah, we all played with cardboard at some time or the other. But in the end, nothing beats a good set of curves... :D

cyrus
27-Nov-2006, 17:51
there's automation involved. does the amount of physcial activity make film more involved than digital?

See, you're comparing the two. IMHO its apples and oranges. There's no point in comparing them. No one denies that there's automation involved in analog photography. Its just that analog photography is simply "different" than digital, and so each have their own unique characteristics. A darkroom is not the same as a printer. This isn't to say that a darkroom is "better" or "worse" - its just not the same thing. So the discussion about digital vs analog is really basically meaningless.

cyrus
27-Nov-2006, 17:58
You are still describing details. Bigger than the difference between, say, one type of gelatin silver paper and another, but smaller than truly major shifts in technology that changed the way photography presented the world (like the invention of the hand camera, or color film). And much bigger than the truly revolutionary shifts--like the invention of photography in the first place.

I can think of only a SINGLE substantive change brought about with digital media. That is the existence of the disembodied image. With a digital image, you have an image that is separated from physical media in a way that is much more distinct than with any analog medium. So we have files that can be viewed on a screen, printed many different ways, transmitted instantly, etc. etc.

Everything else I've seen cited as a unique quality of digital photography has precedent in the analog world. Including ability to be manipulated by hand, the ability to be printed in ink (or other non-light sensitive media), the ability to be reproduced mechanically, etc. etc.


I see your point but you're disconnecting the process from the outcome. My point is that the process of analog photography is part of the outcome. Sure, both digital and analog can result in images - but the processes involved are different. You can perhaps equate a printer with a darkroom in the most abstract sense that both give you an image - but a darkroom is still just not a printer. And the process of creating an image using a darkroom is considered by some to be a desirable characteristic of the resultant image.

I don't really consider the issue from an "evolutionary" perspective anyway. I don't for example consider a stone lithograph or woodcut as being any less "evolutionary" advanced than a film photo. They're just different art forms and each "presents the world" in their own way, that's all. And despite the fact that image-creation technology has changed significantly, woodcuts and stone lithographs are still art forms that are quite alive, desired, and collected. Same can be true about film photography.

Jim collum
27-Nov-2006, 18:02
See, you're comparing the two. IMHO its apples and oranges. There's no point in comparing them. No one denies that there's automation involved in analog photography. Its just that analog photography is simply "different" than digital, and so each have their own unique characteristics. A darkroom is not the same as a printer. This isn't to say that a darkroom is "better" or "worse" - its just not the same thing. So the discussion about digital vs analog is really basically meaningless.


well in the same vein, b/w processing is different than color processing is different than dye transfer, 4 color carbon, etc
but they're all photographs.

paulr
27-Nov-2006, 20:19
... And the process of creating an image using a darkroom is considered by some to be a desirable characteristic of the resultant image.

Well, the process is the process ... it effects the resultant image, in the sense that a silver print will look different from an ink print or a platinum print or a carbro print, etc.. But the process isn't actually a characteristic of the image. The nature of the process might be important to you--it almost always is to a practitioner, and it sometimes is (as a matter of annecdote at least) to certain non-practicing admirers of the work. This is different from saying the process is part of the product.


I don't really consider the issue from an "evolutionary" perspective anyway. I don't for example consider a stone lithograph or woodcut as being any less "evolutionary" advanced than a film photo...

I agree with you here; I wasn't using evolution to suggest some kind of heirarchy, or to mean that a medium or the work it produces somehow improves as time goes on. I just mean it in terms of historical progression. The changes are evolutionary because they inform each other and build on each other as one thing leads to the next.

I also mean use the term to distinguish gradual evolutionary change from radical, revolutionary change. The invention of photography could be seen as revolutionary in the context I'm discussing.

Gordon Moat
27-Nov-2006, 23:20
Well for one thing, one requires a darkroom and the other requires a printer! :)

Hello cyrus,

So is using a Polaroid camera (or Polaroid back on a large format camera) considered photography? It does not require a darkroom nor a printer.
:confused:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

cyrus
28-Nov-2006, 03:11
Hello cyrus,

So is using a Polaroid camera (or Polaroid back on a large format camera) considered photography? It does not require a darkroom nor a printer.
:confused:

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Of course it is. There are many different processes in photography. There are also "photograms" which don't even require a camera! I guess someone somewhere in this discussion made the point that digital photography should not be called photography - but that wasn't me. I do however see the point: perhaps it is time to distinguish the different types of photography by giving them more specific names instead of the generic "photograph" or at least to state more clearly when something is a digital photo vs. when something is a tintype or a calotype or a silver gelatin photo (we seem to be going in this direction already)

Chuck Pere
28-Nov-2006, 04:12
Probably in the future images will all be displayed on digital screens with frames around them. People will just be buying software files from the galleries.

Struan Gray
28-Nov-2006, 06:42
I can think of only a SINGLE substantive change brought about with digital media. That is the existence of the disembodied image.

Combinetrics. (You heard it here first). Digital makes it possible to combine images in ways other than simple cut-and-paste or multi-shot averages. You are freed from the tyrrany of reciprocity, and from the need to simply add up all the time slices of a long exposure.

paulr
28-Nov-2006, 07:51
Combinetrics. (You heard it here first). Digital makes it possible to combine images in ways other than simple cut-and-paste or multi-shot averages. You are freed from the tyrrany of reciprocity, and from the need to simply add up all the time slices of a long exposure.

Ok, I'll bite. Huh?

Mark Sawyer
28-Nov-2006, 15:43
A wonderful aesthetic/philosophical argument, better than most any other I've seen here in that every point made on either side can be so easily shot full of holes...

Don Sparks
28-Nov-2006, 16:59
Hey, look on the bright side....the world might end tomorrow.

Struan Gray
29-Nov-2006, 06:30
Ok, I'll bite. Huh?

I got a bit carried away, so put my braindump into a new thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=197966#post197966

Maris Rusis
29-Nov-2006, 21:31
This is beyond the original topic but David Luttmann in post number 73 raised the legitimate of question of where Sir John Herschel got the name Photography for the process he described in the 14 March, 1839 lecture.

David Luttmann suggests Latin or Greek but I suspect, but cannot prove (yet), that the truth is murkier and more interesting.

John Herschel was the son of William Herschel, Hanoverian musician, famous astronomer, and famous scientist who was a native German speaker. During his boyhood he was tutored, almost every day by his aunt Caroline, also a native German speaker. The household spoke German and English interchangeably.

Early German scientific articles on the chemical rays of light used the term "photographie" before 14 March, 1839. John Herschel, as a pre-eminent scientist, would have been well up on all the published literature and I think he appropriated the German "photographie" and turned into an English name "Photography". Unfortunately I cannot prove this yet but research continues. Even harder is to discover who in Germany concocted "photographie". I wish I was fluent in German because there are a lot of early 19th century scientific treatises to search. Phew!

For the record photography parses into pure Greek roots. Herschel, like other learned men of his time, would not have the accepted an gauche Latin/Greek hybrid.