it's not photography. It's digital imaging.

[jon_k]

Why should we even define what photography is or isn't?

If you're capturing it on film or a CCD. That's what photography is to me. It is NOT about how you get there, it's all about what you end up with. Capturing a single period in time for others to look back at and see the way you wanted to present it. (Of course, if you take an image and digitally edit it beyond what could be done in the darkroom, I guess the film users have an arguement.)

However, I think the arguement about film vs digital is foolish. I admire the filmgroup for being able to only get about 30 shots in before having to swap film. Being able to take the perfect shot without previewing what they did on a screen. No histograms to consult either. It takes a lot more dedication to get a really nice shot on film.

Dodge, burn and cloning techniques are also available in the darkroom but take patience and hard work, something you could do in Photoshop in about 5 minutes. That takes passion and dedication.

The digital crowd just seems to have the attitude *snap* oh, this picture sucked because it was crooked. No worries, I'll just photoshop it! That's what it's for! A film user would rather be inclined to stay and get it right.

For this, the culture between film and digital is different so I can see why naturally the two groups argue, but to call one photography and the other not is a low blow. Come on now!

I've been considering getting an older Olympus film with some OM lenses to see what all this film talk is about. I haven't shot with film on an SLR since I was 9 or 10. I do respect film photography for what it is. It's harder and takes more passion. I believe the film users might suspect most of the digital crowd are poor photographers who come home and fix their sub-par shots up in photoshop.

[LadyShutterBug]

Why should we even define what photography is or isn't?

you don't have to. just let other people (people who like to argue and be "right" and stuff) come up with their own definitions. like the people who try and define any given thing that is really open to interpretation.

[Tapper]

Change always makes folks nervous.

I think film vs. digital is a silly debate. Imaging is imaging. The art, is in choosing composition and media, and producing something evocative. There are distinct differences in some areas between the two formats, but choice is good. Choose what reflects your style and jiggles your willy.

I think the more important concern, is what digital imaging is doing to the profession of photography. It's going to get harder to feed yourself with a camera, when technology enables anyone to make a quality picture as easily as snapping their fingers. It invokes a declining respect for the art and craft of the thing.

Right now, lighting makes the difference between a pro and a duffer. But pretty soon, the enormous progress in lighting and ray tracing algorithms made by the gaming industry are going to start being applied to Photoshop and its ilk, and when it does, the gap between Pro and casual snapper are going to narrow in a hurry.

I have some friends that work at a gaming company called id Software, and some of the things they are doing these days are just amazing. As nearly as I can tell, photoshop lags about 5 years behind the gaming shops, where the real research in digital image manipulation is occurring.

[lacomb-roach_press]

Using different words maybe, but I'm thinking that what Brian says pretty well covers it; but I'll word it my own way and say it like this.

I have to put in what everyone probably knows but hasn't thought about right at the moment. Once the daguerreotype was replaced with the glass plate, the daguerreotypists said "it isn't photography." Along came the paper negative and the tintype as offshoots of the daguerreotype process and "it isn't photography." The silver gelatin base on nitrocellulose replaced all the previous technology and "it isn't photography" was cried by those who practiced any of those previous processes. Then actual cellulose evolved into what we might as well call "plastic" and it was not true to the preceding processes--again, "it isn't photography any more" was cried aloud. Then, by golly, along came something called digital with the same debate. Give a thought to the future; what is it going to be that replaces digital in the evolution of the idea of capturing an image; and if not "photography" what are we going to call it? I'm just wondering?

[Russell]

Here's my take:

Does it all really matter? I could care less what Erwin says.

Sometimes I believe people search too much for the philosophic meanings of inane topics.

I am not speaking of anyone on this forum, mind you, just speaking generally.

I just want to go out and take good pictures.

[johnastovall]

I would say one must understand the aesthetics of the medium in order to take "good pictures."

[surferosa]

Photography IS "writing with light"

Digital Imaging IS "
A description of data which is stored or transmitted as a sequence of discrete symbols from a finite set, most commonly this means binary data represented using electronic or electromagnetic signal;, counterpart; copy.

The problem is that the purity of photography is being diluted with the manipulations that come with digital processing.

To ensure the purity of photography is maintained, I feel it is necessary to categorize digital imaging as such.

Then what about Jerry Uelsman,
http://www.uelsmann.net/
who is such a master at what he does, could be taken as digital imaging?

Is he not a photographer?

[Moses on the Street]

I read a biography of Ansel Adams.

Adams would sometimes make 4,000-5,000 prints dodging, burning, and doing everything else necessary before he would finally produce the image that you see hanging on some museum wall. He used every technical tool available to him at the time to produce the images that he made. And 'twas always thus. Photographers have ALWAYS pushed the envelope, technically, to produce their images.

[iCe]

Originally Posted by Moses on the Street

I read a biography of Ansel Adams.

Adams would sometimes make 4,000-5,000 prints dodging, burning, and doing everything else necessary before he would finally produce the image that you see hanging on some museum wall. He used every technical tool available to him at the time to produce the images that he made. And 'twas always thus. Photographers have ALWAYS pushed the envelope, technically, to produce their images.

Yeah but what did he ever do that was so great

[raevyncent]

10,000 years ago , somewhere in Europe, a primitive man was standing outside a hide tent, looking out at a vast herd of bison. In his hand was a long, heavy spear.

Around from behind the tent comes his hunting buddy. He holds up a curious curved shaft held in position by a taut sinew stretched between the ends of the shaft. In the other hand are what appears to his buddy to be a pile of child's play spears, hardly useful in a hunt.......


And so the debate begins.....

[kenw]

"The problem is that the purity of photography is being diluted with the manipulations that come with digital processing.

To ensure the purity of photography is maintained, I feel it is necessary to categorize digital imaging as such."


BS.
What about chemical darkroom dodging, burning, double exposures, crops, etc?

It's ART, dagnabit.

The purity stopped when you clicked the shutter and removed the environment: the area outside the frame, the smells, the sounds, the "everything else"....

[Moses on the Street]

It's ART, dagnabit.

Heh heh ... speak for yourself.

:)

[RDM]

Originally Posted by raevyncent

10,000 years ago , somewhere in Europe, a primitive man was standing outside a hide tent, looking out at a vast herd of bison. In his hand was a long, heavy spear.

Around from behind the tent comes his hunting buddy. He holds up a curious curved shaft held in position by a taut sinew stretched between the ends of the shaft. In the other hand are what appears to his buddy to be a pile of child's play spears, hardly useful in a hunt.......


And so the debate begins.....

/sarcasm ON
It's no longer hunting at that point I tell ya. Hunting is about killing things close range with a makeshift pointy object or clubbing it to death with a stick. None of this ranged wimp-like weaponry...
/sarcasm OFF

[zach-e2]

my take is this..
photography is photography. it's not built around walls. it is what it is.
there are some that can make art with it, and there are some that can't.

my friend, jeremy, is one of the most creative individuals when it comes to photography. he has only been into photography for a few years, but he has always been an artist/designer. when he picked up photography, he started off with the basics, but then he quickly tried to mix photoshop and various photo editing tricks on some of his photos and was amazed at the result he got.

jeremy has since gotten into different types of film (holga, polaroids, etc), but just because it's film doesn't mean he doesn't try to trick those photos out too. i sat in with him on a photoshoot for an artist a couple of weeks ago.. something he just started trying out was "destroying" polaroids before they fully develop. that's not a digital editing process at all, but it looks extremely tight.

references:
http://jeremycowart.com/photo_images/0000/4523/andy.jpg
http://jeremycowart.com/photo_images...617/w3__2_.jpg
http://jeremycowart.com/photo_images/0000/3675/75.jpg
http://jeremycowart.com/photo_images/0000/1059/w4.jpg
http://jeremycowart.com/photo_images/0000/1067/sb4.jpg
http://jeremycowart.com/photo_images/0000/0037/h7.jpg
http://jeremycowart.com/photo_images/0000/3971/h1.jpg
http://jeremycowart.com/photo_images/0000/0771/h1.jpg
http://jeremycowart.com/photo_images/0000/4195/w4.jpg
http://jeremycowart.com/photo_images/0000/0775/w1.jpg

to sum up what jeremy is known for saying- photos have a life of their own. some scream "heavy sharpening", some may scream "vintage polaroid", some may scream "crystal clean feeling"... just have to play it by ear (or eye).