Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Is photography, today, still photography?  (Read 5340 times)

cgarnerhome

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 240
    • cgarnerphoto
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2018, 01:37:06 pm »

I would argue photography has not changed.  The tools available to enhance our expression of a captured image have changed dramatically. 

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14048
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2018, 03:10:02 pm »

The digital darkroom is the process I used to dream about while I was inhaling all those noxious fumes in a large darkened cupboard, hated every moment. Didn't know what it would be, what it would be called or that it would ever exist but now that it's here I wouldn't want it any different.

Wet prints, film, forget it, if I had to go back in time that's exactly what I'd do.

Viva all things digital including this place.

A rare occasion to agree with Keith ;)

Try this with film: ISO 10,000 (ten thousands!)

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #42 on: August 13, 2018, 03:20:31 pm »

A rare occasion to agree with Keith ;)

Try this with film: ISO 10,000 (ten thousands!)


Slobodan, it was bound to happen sooner or later.

;-)
Logged

Ivo_B

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 582
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #43 on: August 13, 2018, 04:09:31 pm »

Interesting discussion.











In 2004...........

 ;)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 04:12:37 pm by Ivo_B »
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2018, 04:17:55 pm »

Interesting discussion.











In 2004...........

 ;)

Yes, I remember it well.

;-)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21704
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #45 on: August 13, 2018, 04:46:05 pm »

Actually our darkroom at college was state of the art and newly purpose built, replacing as it did that cupboard. What went on in there would make anyone's hair curl, but hey, it was the sixties.

And for the brief time remaining, I really would have been able to curl my hair.

I'll not raise it again, but that Golden Age thang...

;-)

Rob

MattBurt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2405
  • Looking for that other shot
    • Matt Burt Photography
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #46 on: August 13, 2018, 06:32:59 pm »

We had a lot of darkroom shenanigans in the 1980's when I was in high school and starting college as well. The fume hood and locking door made it a go-to weed smoking spot for those inclined.  :o

I was already a computer scientist and a photographer so when the two disciplines came together, I was thrilled!
That being said I wouldn't mind a simple darkroom at home again for my 5x7 negatives. Could happen one day in the semi-near future.
Logged
-MattB

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #47 on: August 14, 2018, 03:40:23 am »

Interesting discussion.

In 2004...........

 ;)

It held your interest for 42 posts and elicited a reply...

;)
Logged
Phil Brown

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21704
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #48 on: August 14, 2018, 04:06:38 am »

A rare occasion to agree with Keith ;)

Try this with film: ISO 10,000 (ten thousands!)



And in so doing, and posting pictures, you prove (for me) my point: digital has taken image-making to something quite else, making an image possible under light too low for much luck with film.

Nobody argues that cameras are not still the common ground, but the afterwork is completely different and has nothing more to do with light.

You don't even get the darkroom use of light, in the enlarger as in the safelight.

This is not a fight over film or digital superiority; it's about each being a different beast to the degree that they cannot really be compared.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #49 on: August 14, 2018, 04:39:36 am »



And in so doing, and posting pictures, you prove (for me) my point: digital has taken image-making to something quite else, making an image possible under light too low for much luck with film.

Nobody argues that cameras are not still the common ground, but the afterwork is completely different and has nothing more to do with light.

You don't even get the darkroom use of light, in the enlarger as in the safelight.

This is not a fight over film or digital superiority; it's about each being a different beast to the degree that they cannot really be compared.

And yet by starting this thread you are asking us to do just that.

;-)
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #50 on: August 14, 2018, 05:43:31 am »



making an image possible under light too low for much luck with film.

N.

Well, few weeks ago I exactly said the same. Laughter was my share and someone posted an unsharp and blurry picture made on film to prove the opposite.

🤫
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1104
Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #51 on: August 14, 2018, 05:44:27 am »

It held your interest for 42 posts and elicited a reply...



I skipped the blabla.

^2
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14048
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #52 on: August 14, 2018, 06:46:59 am »

... the afterwork is completely different and has nothing more to do with light.

You don't even get the darkroom use of light, in the enlarger as in the safelight...

Thatís why we have the Lightroom  ;)

Actually, there is light, coming from the computer monitor. Without that, we wouldnít even see what we captured.

It is still the same animal. Just a Rottweiler vs. a poodle 😊

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1048
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #53 on: August 14, 2018, 07:15:38 am »

Thatís why we have the Lightroom  ;)

Actually, there is light, coming from the computer monitor. Without that, we wouldnít even see what we captured.

It is still the same animal. Just a Rottweiler vs. a poodle 😊

I was about to say the same thing. Itís all about light. Colour spaces, contrast, colour.  I really like it.

I was nuts about the darkroom and printed for some really top photographers. People like David Goldblatt who passed away recently. Loved the whole vibe. Setting up the neg in the  carrier, blowing off the dust, slipping the paper into the developer and watching the image image slowly emerge inthe dim light. It was marvelous. I hated the clean up though, washing trays and draining chemicals. Tidying up. A real pain. 

As much as liked the whole process I donít miss it. I like PS and really like C1. LR seems like a necessary evil. Itís still the same in essence for me. Even though I shoot commercially I am still out almost every weekend shooting for myself.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21704
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #54 on: August 14, 2018, 08:48:41 am »

And yet by starting this thread you are asking us to do just that.

;-)


No, I'm not buying that interpretation at all.

I am not asking anyone to choose between either digital or film, neither am I suggesting one is better than the other. I'm suggesting they are such different animals, especially after the click, that they have ceased to be comparable.

Slobodan's shot at incredible (in film terms) ISO shows that the departure from the traditional sense of photography has perhaps started even before processing, though I am inclined to discount that idea and believe it is still photography up to the point of capture.

Stretch it much further, and then you have to admit the case for X-Rays and Echo scans as well as thermal imaging devices to be welcomed into the realm of photography, if only because you can see an image.

Rob

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21704
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #55 on: August 14, 2018, 08:57:48 am »

1. Thatís why we have the Lightroom  ;)

2. Actually, there is light, coming from the computer monitor. Without that, we wouldnít even see what we captured.

It is still the same animal. Just a Rottweiler vs. a poodle 😊

1. Lightroom is just a trade name.

2. You have a point there, but more a semantic one than relevant to the formation of an image. It is passive, in that it let's you see what you have done in the computer, but does not, of itself, make changes to the image; it is not even a catalyst.

3. You'll never get a job at Crufts!

;-)

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #56 on: August 14, 2018, 09:39:37 am »

And in so doing, and posting pictures, you prove (for me) my point: digital has taken image-making to something quite else, making an image possible under light too low for much luck with film.

Nobody argues that cameras are not still the common ground, but the afterwork is completely different and has nothing more to do with light.

You don't even get the darkroom use of light, in the enlarger as in the safelight.

This is not a fight over film or digital superiority; it's about each being a different beast to the degree that they cannot really be compared.

And yet by starting this thread you are asking us to do just that.

;-)

No, I'm not buying that interpretation at all.
I am not asking anyone to choose between either digital or film, neither am I suggesting one is better than the other...

And I am not buying your interpretation of my previous post which said nothing about making any kind of choice.

To answer your original question we need to compare for ourselves something that you've said is incomparable and yet by starting this thread you are asking us to do just that.

;-)
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 09:54:34 am by KLaban »
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1048
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #57 on: August 14, 2018, 10:00:27 am »

Film photography and digital photography are not comparable? I can think of lots of ways in which they are comparable. Sure they are different but they are certainly comparable.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #58 on: August 14, 2018, 10:25:13 am »

Film photography and digital photography are not comparable? I can think of lots of ways in which they are comparable. Sure they are different but they are certainly comparable.

Absolutely.
Logged

cgarnerhome

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 240
    • cgarnerphoto
Re: Is photography, today, still photography?
« Reply #59 on: August 14, 2018, 12:35:30 pm »

Are we just overthinking it?  Isnít it just the evolution of how we capture and process images?  Clearly the rate of change in technologies that have impacted the photographic process have accelerated dramatically in the last 20 years.  For me, the intent has stayed the same Ė I want to capture and display images that speak to me.  I for one, love having options available to me to support that objective.  Itís as if technologies have allowed me to be more articulate with my expression.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up