JJJ said,
"Uh, you held him up as an example of what you mean by this whole integrity thing, yet he was being a little loose with the truth. As what he claimed was not exactly true. So Im not discussing people for no reason, I'm doing so as his claims are so very relevant to the discusion. If he is being disenguous about PPing, is he being truthful everywhere else?"Uh, you don't really have any idea of what Mangelsen does or doesn't do photographically. At best, you are repeating what someone else said, who himself repeated what someone else said. This makes you a parrot. A 3rd-hand parrot. This is not "knowledge"; this is gossip, which why I don't wish to discuss Mangelsen any longer. I don't think it is right to accuse someone of anything improper, who is not here to defend himself, when no one has any facts at all but rather hearsay allegations.
JJJ said,
"But it is relevant and completely on topic. As part of his 'pure' photographic approach is not soo pure after all."Wrong. Again, you have no knowledge of what Mangelsen does or doesn't do. My desire is to discuss
the concept of pure photography, not the individual who claims to practice it. What part of this simplicity do you find so difficult to grasp? Please re-read my emboldened preface to you ...
JJJ said,
"There is no pure photography and that is the point you seem to not understand."Perhaps this is all of it. And yet, as Dalethorn posted previously, the idea of capturing the image on a sensor can be likened to capturing the sound on a recording device. The idea is to record the image/sound as exactly as possible with NO further manipulation. This is the concept I wish to discuss. Perhaps, as you say, this is simply impossible.
JJJ said,
"No point missed at all as it wasn't relevant to the point in question. I was only commenting on the claim of the camera having no influence.
Besides your idea of what photography is as I have said before simply naive. You need to look at history of photography a lot more."What? When have I ever said the camera has "no influence?" This is precisely the opposite of what I am saying.
What I am saying is "photography" is when the camera has virtually ALL of the influence, and where "developing" is merely taking the recorded image "as is" and turing it into a physical image with AS LITTLE manipulation as possible. I am also saying that the more the creation of the image comes through digital manipulation that produces a result which is substantially different from what was created on the sensor, the less and less the produced image can be called a "photograph" and the more and more it becomes a "digital image."
JJJ said,
"No it is a photograph. Just because a computer was involved makes no difference. Most things done in a computer were done before computers existed. It was always called photography then, why make the distinction now?
BTW - Photography literally means drawing with light."I believe you to be wrong on several levels. First of all, if (as has already been provided) "photography" is
defined as
capturing an image of gathered light upon a sensor, then "working on said image later" is NOT photography, it is something quite different. Even in days gone by, this "after process" of the recorded image was called
developing, not photography. This is why one man could be a professional photographer and another could provide professional services as a developer, as the two skillsets were (and are) completely different.
Second of all, I would like to hear you explain the logic of how the digital manipulation of 272 photos into one composite image consititutes "a" photograph. If "a" photograph is "a" captured image upon a sensor, and 272 of these things were then clipped, altered, and fused together digitally upon a computer, and not a sensor, then please explain how the final product can be called "a captured image upon a sensor."
JJJ said,
"No. It just a different way of doing exactly the same thing.
Go look at the work of Uelsmann or Hag. They did their work before computers and were always regarded as photographers."I will study these and comment later. However, a "different way" of doing the same thing is therefore a
different discipline. That is the part we keep disagreeing on. Again, if I win a fight by kneebar, I may have won but I did not use boxing, I produced my desired end via a different discipline, namely grappling. This is in no way ranking one over the other, it is merely a simple observation of basic fact and basic definition. If Mr. Brown produced his magnificent image through the digital manipulation of 272 images, then the greater majority of his work was digital manipulation, not photography. Again, this is not to rank one over the other, but another simple observation of basic fact and basic definition.
JJJ said,
"The fighting analogy is a very poor one. Boxing is a sport with very specific rules and regulations. MMA is another sport that has a different set of rules and restrictions. Photography has never had restrictions, being an open creative medium. So not a good comparison."There are differences in my analogy, true, and you are searching for them, but the point I am making is a very good analogy IMO. A "desired end" is being achieved NOT through one discipline, but through another.
JJJ said,
"I could even easily beat a MMA, simply by ignoring their rules. Real fighting has no rules and real fighting is a better comparison."JJJ said,
"Both are photographers. I can think of other ways of doing what Dan did - without a computer. If the end result is the same, what difference is there?"One is a pure photographer; one only uses photography as a small part of the overall effort to achieve an end. Morally, there is no difference. Only a different set of skills being implemented. A man who uses a computer to make the sum and substance of his work is being a digital manipulator more than a pure photographer. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this, only observing that "pure photography" is becoming a dying art, same as "pure boxing" is becoming a dying art. This may actually be a GOOD thing, as there are many more creative possibilities opened-up.
JJJ said,
"It's a photograph.
I think your whole premise is based on an ignorance of photographic antecendents and practices that have existed a very long time."Well, I humbly admit my ignorance on so many different aspects of photography, and yet (as it is defined) post-process digital manipulation is not photography. Recording an image as exactly as possible upon a sensor, using a camera, is photography.
JJJ said,
"You may as well say anyone who uses a digital camera is no longer a photographer."That is almost exactly what I am saying, same as a MMA fighter is no longer a boxer. He merely uses boxing as one of his many tools to win, where previously boxing was the sole discipline of the prize fighter.
JJJ said,
"I realise you are thinking aloud and debating a concept. But I think you need to look at the history of photography a bit more, as you may well argue very differently, if at all."Really, that is all I am doing: thinking out loud. I don't think studying history would alter my view much at all, but perhaps it would. I am merely thinking that the digital age of photography has placed as great or greater emphasis on digital manipulation as photography. I don't think this is "bad" at all, merely an observation. There really is no "point" to discussing this, really, just conceptual and something to do. René Descartes drafted a whole book on trying to prove he existed, and could only come up with "I think therefore I am," as the only logical inference a person can make. This might be mental masturbation to some, but it was an exercise in trying to validate and prove what we think we "know," as opposed to what we "assume" we know, to others.
Is there a practical point to such questions about whether digital manipulation is "photography" or not? Probably no. However, it was something that struck me as I considered a goal of simply getting the perfect image "in camera" rather than via "post process." That is all.