Is it Over?

[Rob C]

Why, there is any actual point in the original link beside "just film photographers were real photographers"?

Yes, Diego: it isn't about the photographers being real ones or not, it's about the medium being key. There are wonderful photographers working in both forms of the medium, that's not in dispute.

In this very place, LuLa, there is a very talented photographer who chooses to be known as Cooter, and another who does cars better than anyone else I have seen: Haefner. Both worked/work in the two mediums. Their talents in either are not the discussion.

The discussion is about the one medium being something quite different to the other one. If you don't see that or simply don't find it convenient to see it, that's fine. There's no sense of accusation in that link, simply a distinction being made.

And in my eyes, at least, that distinction is as wide as an ocean. I have worked a long time now in both; I never confuse the differences in my mind.

Rob C

[GrahamBy]

Rob, for you I tried, but
"And its indexical nature is closely tied to its analogue processes"
is just rubbish. Photography is already digital, in the sense that it is the breaking of finite numbers of bonds... it's not continuous. At least the luddites who prefer analogue audio over digital have some vague justification in saying that an LP is a continuous representation of the sound (although sampling theory tells us we can recreate that to sufficient accuracy from the digital data).

He follows up with
"what is produced isn’t a ‘thing’ but only a pattern which contains the potential of something else, something else that requires the intercession of of third thing, computation"
... as opposed to a potential that requires the intercession of developer, a point made up top by Andrew M.

Now, one can say that there is a certain aesthetic in working in the darkroom (although my skin is happy to no longer be subject to the chemicals), or a zen discipline in having limited dynamic range and no ability to just wind the ISO up to 3200 and still have less grain than Tri-X, or in processing to take into account the exposure conditions that you carefully noted down at the time of shooting. Just as it's a matter of personal taste to prefer the cross-talk, high frequency attenuation and high noise floor that LP reproduction imposes on music.

But that article just strikes me as someone revelling in his ignorance of the technology he's using while having a wank over Barthe's jargon. I like Barthes, I really do, I think he was an important thinker: his essay on "haute culture / haute couture" is a wonderful deflation of self importance in the arts, and his understanding of the cyclic nature of the "return to source" argument ("rive gauche, rive droite"... I think) is brilliant. But this... why not complain about the use of flash? Or tripods, which destroy the innate implication of the photographer's emotional response to the scene in the immanent image through the shaking of his or her hands... 

Actually I prefer June's portraits to Helmut's, and the overtones of BDSM leave me cold, but he did some cool stuff I'm tempted by the mini-sumo, but than I'm currently chuffed to have found a copy of Madonna/Meisel's "Sex" for 15€, so I can catch up with what I couldn't imagine buying 24 years ago 

[Diego Pigozzo]

Yes, Diego: it isn't about the photographers being real ones or not, it's about the medium being key. There are wonderful photographers working in both forms of the medium, that's not in dispute.

What medium?
We're talking of the photographic medium both in film and in digital: what is different is the technology that allows that medium to exists.

The discussion is about the one medium being something quite different to the other one. If you don't see that or simply don't find it convenient to see it, that's fine. There's no sense of accusation in that link, simply a distinction being made.

And in my eyes, at least, that distinction is as wide as an ocean. I have worked a long time now in both; I never confuse the differences in my mind.

Rob C

Would you say that for painting is really such an important matter if the colors used by the painter is a syntetic or a natural product?

Because that's what the difference you're talking about looks like: just a difference in technology that force some minor differences in workflow.

[amolitor]

Yes this is the same old film/digital discussion.

The discussion isn't over. Digital is, as a mass social phenomenon, extremely young. We don't know what the consequences are going to be, overall. It behooves us to keep our eyes on the ball, to keep observing and thinking about it.

Unless, of course, you choose to work in a vacuum, working privately and out of contact with the larger society, or perhaps hewing closely to a small group of like minded people. That is your prerogative. Enjoy your little dark hole.

[Rob C]

What medium?
We're talking of the photographic medium both in film and in digital: what is different is the technology that allows that medium to exists.

Would you say that for painting is really such an important matter if the colors used by the painter is a syntetic or a natural product?

Because that's what the difference you're talking about looks like: just a difference in technology that force some minor differences in workflow.

That analogy is false: false, because with painting, it's always and same thing: hands-on hand/eye skills, regardless of paint type. Even the simple act of varnishing a shutter is a tactile experience where you can feel in the brush the different consistencies of the varnish mixture you apply.

With photography I think it's not the same in both mediums: with the wet process it's visceral as well as physical, as with painting; with digital it's got the same charm as I mentioned before, of painting by numbers. Painting by numbers doesn't mean 1 or 2, + or -, it means filling in blocks of predetermined colour which requires little skill. Sitting at a computer able to perform an infinite variety of clicks, cancel them out, try another, isn't what film photography is about: it's something entirely else, which is perhaps why there are so many people doing digital today: everyone's a photographer now - they wish. Working wet offers a connectedness with the artefact that digital never can. You can have that experience in making something with your hands, but simply clicking like a parrot with a mouse under its claws is nowhere near the same thing.

There's no other way I know how I can explain what I believe the original quotation is saying, which made it interesting enough to me to make me think others here may find a similar interest. If you think otherwise, then I can't convince you, and it really doesn't much matter. Certainly not enough for either of us to lose sleep about it.

Rob C

[MattBurt]

The hand wringing regarding the "death of photography" due to Photoshop, Instagram, or automated cameras is lost on me. I like images. I like well though out, hand-crafted images. I also like from the hip, heat of the moment images that really capture something interesting. I like a lot the stuff between those two as well, as long as it's not duck-faced selfies or endless bad food pics.
The process that created those images I like is secondary to me. It's often interesting, but it's not the meat of what the image does for me. Telling a story, showing me an amazing scene, or revealing an otherwise hidden truth. Now the degree of modification or at least the style of it certainly does affect my enjoyment. I'm not really into gaudy HDR or Photoshopped scenes that put a telephoto-sized moon in a wide angle shot, but I'm not bothered that they exist and others like them. It's a matter of taste.
Whether made by carving on a stone tablet, painting on a canvas, exposing an emulsion, or using the latest high tech image making machines, if the image speaks to me then I consider it "good". If it's not journalism I'm not too concerned that the process may have altered what was originally captured. Painters have always had the luxury or adding or omitting whatever would achieve their vision more effectively. If it's overdone then that image is not going to speak to me, or at least not as much.
This always reminds me of how painters felt threatened by and hated photographers when they came on to the scene. This is just that same sentiment. I just prefer to think of us all as image makers, people with a common goal rather than adversaries and competitors trying to win a holy war to declare their preferred image creation The One. That reminds me of other futile holy wars that I want no part of.

[GrahamBy]

Weeeell, I don't think Rob said photography was dead, just different.
So help me understand... are you saying the camera part is different, or the lab+printing side? That is after all the only bit that is really "wet".
Or is it both because in pushing the shutter you need to think about the limitations of the processing?
Where would you place the practice of shooting film, processing by the book, followed by scanning the negs, and printing from photoshop after dust-removal and some curve shifting?

[Diego Pigozzo]

That analogy is false: false, because with painting, it's always and same thing: hands-on hand/eye skills, regardless of paint type. Even the simple act of varnishing a shutter is a tactile experience where you can feel in the brush the different consistencies of the varnish mixture you apply.

And with photograph it's always the same thing: the photographer feels something, creates a composition and produces an image regardless of the light-sensitive material.
So why my analogy is false?

With photography I think it's not the same in both mediums: with the wet process it's visceral as well as physical, as with painting;

My photography involves a lot of trekking with al least 10 kg of gear on my back: is this less physical or visceral just because my gear is digital?

with digital it's got the same charm as I mentioned before, of painting by numbers.

I though you said that "with painting, it's always and same thing: hands-on hand/eye skills, regardless of paint type".
Are you saying that this is not true anymore if the paint is of the numbers type?

Painting by numbers doesn't mean 1 or 2, + or -, it means filling in blocks of predetermined colour which requires little skill

Even putting paint on a canvas requires little skill (in fact, it requires no skill at all).
But, for some reason, none of my paintings are in any museum.
And none of my photos are, either.
How it can be, if "painting with numbers requires little skill"?

Working wet offers a connectedness with the artefact that digital never can. You can have that experience in making something with your hands, but simply clicking like a parrot with a mouse under its claws is nowhere near the same thing.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer and, therefore, I cannot have any meaningful "connectedness" with a jet engine.
But I'm sure an aeronautical engineer can, even if he designs engines "using just numbers".

So, is it possible that YOU don't get connected with a digital artifact because you don't have the right mindset and/or skills?

Certainly not enough for either of us to lose sleep about it.

Said the one who spent so much effort to belittle those who use the digital technology.


As I suspected, it's the same old tirade "digital vs film".
Soooooo boring....

[Diego Pigozzo]

The process that created those images I like is secondary to me. It's often interesting, but it's not the meat of what the image does for me.

Being quite nerdy, for me the process is often quite important in the "meat" of what the image does for me because it tells me something more about photography.
But that doesn't imply a process is more noble than the other.

[amolitor]

I'm terribly sorry you're so bored, Diego. Perhaps you should go find something worthwhile to do instead.

[Telecaster]

I personally find electronic photography to be essentially the same as film photography when I'm clicking the shutter. I have more config options (per-exposure white balance & ISO) but otherwise I'm thinking, feeling & doing the same things. It's the post-exposure process that's changed. Immediately….I typically check the rear screen to verify framing, location of elements in the frame & histogram. Chimping. This can and often does take me out of the moment, which I do not like and yet which proves useful. Particularly so if the point of taking the pics is to "get the shot(s)". Later on…I go for a light touch in post nowadays, but when I first got my hands on a good scanner and Photoshop 2.5 (or whatever it was) I was yanking & twisting tonal values around with the best of 'em. I don't consider any of this better or worse than it was in the days of Kodachrome & Tri-X. But it's certainly different.

Now with all this power comes, for me, a persistent question: If I can do essentially anything image-wise that I can imagine, what happens to the reason for and value of doing any particular thing? It's the kind of question that IMO should provoke thought and reflection rather than attempted answers.

-Dave-

[GrahamBy]

If I can do essentially anything image-wise that I can imagine, what happens to the reason for and value of doing any particular thing?

I would have liked to have said that, yes 

[GrahamBy]

Just went back to the Nadav Kander interview Rob posted. At the end he comments that the shooting is very different for him in digital, because of the ability to preview
"as soon as I see I have a good shot, the nervousness leaves"

So he felt that with film he would try more things, and be more adventurous, because he could never be really sure he had a good shot on the film. He recommended throwing the screen out the window.

Otoh, at the start, he talked about going to look at the images on screen and deciding to change the lighting, sooooo.... 

[jjj]

Just went back to the Nadav Kander interview Rob posted. At the end he comments that the shooting is very different for him in digital, because of the ability to preview
"as soon as I see I have a good shot, the nervousness leaves"

So he felt that with film he would try more things, and be more adventurous, because he could never be really sure he had a good shot on the film. He recommended throwing the screen out the window.

Otoh, at the start, he talked about going to look at the images on screen and deciding to change the lighting, sooooo.... 

Alternatively.

"as soon as I see I have a good shot, the nervousness leaves"
So he felt that with digital now that the shot was secured he could try more things, and be more adventurous. Because he had a good shot on the card, could now take real risks."

It's all a matter of perspective and it's so worth changing position [physically or metaphorically]  to get a fresh perspective on the world.

[petermfiore]

Alternatively.

"as soon as I see I have a good shot, the nervousness leaves"
So he felt that with digital now that the shot was secured he could try more things, and be more adventurous. Because he had a good shot on the card, could now take real risks."

It's all a matter of perspective and it's so worth changing position [physically or metaphorically]  to get a fresh perspective on the world.

This is very much my take and has always been, secure what I need to do and then play. As an illustrator I always answered the client's request in my first sketch and then I would go on and provide several variations. Often they would select one my concepts.
T'was a grand time...to be paid for personal work!

Peter

[petermfiore]

This is very much my take and has always been, secure what I need to do and then play. As an illustrator I always answered the client's request in my first sketch and then I would go on and provide several variations. Often they would select one my concepts.
T'was a grand time...to be paid for personal work!

Peter

[jjj]

T'was a grand time...to be paid for personal work!

How quaint!

[Rob C]

And with photograph it's always the same thing: the photographer feels something, creates a composition and produces an image regardless of the light-sensitive material.
So why my analogy is false?


My photography involves a lot of trekking with al least 10 kg of gear on my back: is this less physical or visceral just because my gear is digital?

I though you said that "with painting, it's always and same thing: hands-on hand/eye skills, regardless of paint type".
Are you saying that this is not true anymore if the paint is of the numbers type?


Even putting paint on a canvas requires little skill (in fact, it requires no skill at all).
But, for some reason, none of my paintings are in any museum.
And none of my photos are, either.
How it can be, if "painting with numbers requires little skill"?




I'm not an aeronautical engineer and, therefore, I cannot have any meaningful "connectedness" with a jet engine.
But I'm sure an aeronautical engineer can, even if he designs engines "using just numbers".

So, is it possible that YOU don't get connected with a digital artifact because you don't have the right mindset and/or skills?

Said the one who spent so much effort to belittle those who use the digital technology.


As I suspected, it's the same old tirade "digital vs film".
Soooooo boring....

Diego, I'd reply to each point, but I don't think you'd understand anything.

Your loss not mine.

Rob C

[Stanmore]

The author has no perspective on the history of photography...

"And it’s this claim to truth that gives photography its uncanny ability to communicate with us, to make us reflect, or to aid us in remembrance, or to help us see anew."

Photography was invented/introduced the World in 1839. By the 1850's photography was being used to create images composited with circa-30 different exposures: Pure fictions. Esssentially, nothing has changed since then.

[amolitor]

I suspect that you are underestimating the author's grasp of history, and jumping to conclusions about his point.