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

[johnastovall]

Mike Johnson starts today's blog off with a thought provoking and I think important essay about what we are really doing with digital.

Mike spring boards off of an essay by Erwin Puts, "Photography does not exist anymore!" He then goes on to examine the fundamental essences of what this craft we do with lenses, sensors and computers and where it fits in presenting the world and our ideas.

We need to think more about what the medium is and not just about 'How do I do that?" to truly grow in our craft and art.

Read "Digital and its Discontents." I can't think of a better thing to do this hot morning.

[jeffkohn]

I think the original article by Puts was pretty absurd. His arguments are weak, and his narrow definition of photography not only excludes digital, but also any number of other "alternative" processes that don't fit the definition of silver gelatin prints. He comes across as someone who's afraid that his sense of superiority is threatened by new technology.

Mike tries to rephrase the argument in a more reasonable way, conceding that both film and digital can be used for either "truth" or "fiction", but at the same time arguing that since "fiction" is "easier" with digital the medium still matters. I do agree with Mike that for some types of images, the truth of the image is important; but I just don't think the medium is important at all. Using his buffalo example, whether the buffalo was inserted digitally or by placing a large cardboard cutout on the sidewalk wouldn't matter one whit to me.

I think what proponents of the "fim is more truthful" argument really mean (although they won't admit it, maybe not even to themselves), is that the general public's perception of photography as truth has been eroded by digital. Photographers have been "lying" for decades, only most people didn't realize it. Now people are a little more skeptical about photography's truth and I think that's probably a good thing.

[texxter]

John, thanks for sharing these articles. Jeff, you make good points.

I am of the opinion that trying to redefine photography to exclude digital capture is futile and does not illuminate anything. As Jeff pointed out, Mike is more even-handed in his analysis of the distinction and similarities between capturing chemically and capturing digitally, but still, it seems like a pretty academic and "fuzzy" exercise.

I think it's good to go back to photographers like Andreas Feininger and review his very accurate and still relevant discusision about the nature of photography, and photography as a language of symbols - all these nuances about photography vs. digital imaging look like debris compared to the clarity and usefulness of Andreas Feininger's work dating from the sixties!

I quote from page 223 of "The Complete Photographer"

...Perhaps the greatest misconception about photography is expressed in the saying "the camera does not lie." If anything, the opposite is true. The great majority of photographs are "lies" in the sense that don't truly conform to fact: they are two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional objects; black-and-white pictures of colorful reality; "frozen" stills of moving subjects. Every photograph that "didn't come off," every picture that disappointed the photographer because it didn't express what he wanted to say, is an example. Yet every photograph is in a very real sense a truthful and authentic rendition of a subject or event of the moment the picture was made.

[Andrea goes on to explain this apparent contradition in a few fascinating pages.]

[Patti Edens]

Quote from Photography does not exist anymore! :

"It has been noted that the prediction that photography is dead has been prematurely made. I am afraid that this prediction is false."

So, what is Puts saying? If "this prediction" that photography is dead is false, then photography is not dead.

Because his last sentence contradicts his entire premise, I'm inclined to dismiss his essay as the ramblings of an idiot.

Maybe what he meant to say was that the prediction was not prematurely made. But that's not what he said.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

Quote from Photography does not exist anymore! :

"It has been noted that the prediction that photography is dead has been prematurely made. I am afraid that this prediction is false."

So, what is Puts saying? If "this prediction" that photography is dead is false, then photography is not dead.

Because his last sentence contradicts his entire premise, I'm inclined to dismiss his essay as the ramblings of an idiot.

Maybe what he meant to say was that the prediction was not prematurely made. But that's not what he said.

English is not Erwin's primary language.

[akimartymar]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

I think the original article by Puts was pretty absurd. His arguments are weak, and his narrow definition of photography not only excludes digital, but also any number of other "alternative" processes that don't fit the definition of silver gelatin prints. He comes across as someone who's afraid that his sense of superiority is threatened by new technology.

Mike tries to rephrase the argument in a more reasonable way, conceding that both film and digital can be used for either "truth" or "fiction", but at the same time arguing that since "fiction" is "easier" with digital the medium still matters. I do agree with Mike that for some types of images, the truth of the image is important; but I just don't think the medium is important at all. Using his buffalo example, whether the buffalo was inserted digitally or by placing a large cardboard cutout on the sidewalk wouldn't matter one whit to me.

I think what proponents of the "fim is more truthful" argument really mean (although they won't admit it, maybe not even to themselves), is that the general public's perception of photography as truth has been eroded by digital. Photographers have been "lying" for decades, only most people didn't realize it. Now people are a little more skeptical about photography's truth and I think that's probably a good thing.

To go a bit further with Jeff's input, "trick" photography has been around for a very long time. People have manipulated film since way before anyone knew what digital meant. Supposed "ghost" photographs made from double exposures are only one way in which film doesn't always tell the "truth".

[TXhummer2]

Were we able to create a 3D hologram in color of what is in our own memory, then we would be closer to the truthful visual world we see with our own eyes. Otherwise, photography is more like art than most think it is.

[Coelus]

My father love to tell this story about my grandfather. My grandfather was a superstitious and backwards fellow. He only had five or six years of education, but supported the family with a lot of had work on our farm. He didn't trust technology because he didn't understand it all that well, and anything he didn't understand was useless to him. He was too proud to admit when something was beyond his grasp. The man believed that the only way a field would grow fertile is if it was plowed by mules or oxen. Plants wouldn't grow right if you used a tractor. It didn't matter that he was the only one in the area that didn't use a tractor. He always found something to point out that was wrong about a field that was tilled by machine. Well one spring grandpa got sick and couldn't work the mules. Dad had his chance, he brought a tractor over and did a weeks work in one day. Grandpa groused and groaned about it and claimed that the place was ruined. Of course the corn was planted, the rains were good, and he brought in a good crop that year. Over the next couple years he still didn't belive in a tractor, but every once in a while he would ask dad to bring it over a do a little bit since his health was failing. Of course where ever the tractor was used was never as good as the rest of the crop in my grandfathers eyes.
He had a stroke in 1981 and died later that year at the age of 83. I was only 5. I never heard him speak english, always german. He spoke german to me because he knew I wouldn't understand what he was saying; and I guess that had a lot deeper meaning than I knew at the time. He died believing that the moon landing was fake because there's no way a person can get that far. He died with three mules in the barn and 747's passing overhead on their way to IAH. He never left the state, and rarely went further than the next county. He probably knew more about preserving meat, making moonshine, local history, working livestock, and living off the fruit of the earth than anyone else I've ever met. But he didn't think there was a point to me being able to understand him, because my world was too different from his. The reality is I would give anything to know the knowledge and stories he had. To be able to use that repository on the world around me today.
Is this so different from the film/digital argument? I think those of you with decades in the dark room Have a lot of knowledge and insight to pass on. The digital world fights as hard to make their work look like a silver gelatin print as it does to push the bounderies of the medium in new directions. It doesn't matter what you work your field with. It still takes good seed, good soil, and good weather to bring in a bumper crop. And don't treat your grandchildren like they're beyond comprehending you, or think you to be irrelevent. We stand on the shoulder of giants and we know it. We just need you to be patient and let us reach for the sun too.

[Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Coelus

Is this so different from the film/digital argument? I think those of you with decades in the dark room Have a lot of knowledge and insight to pass on. The digital world fights as hard to make their work look like a silver gelatin print as it does to push the bounderies of the medium in new directions.

... And don't treat your grandchildren like they're beyond comprehending you, or think you to be irrelevent. We stand on the shoulder of giants and we know it. We just need you to be patient and let us reach for the sun too.

Well, I won't take your remarks personally, if you won't take the following personally:

Not all analog workers dislike or distrust digital. In fact, truth be known, most of us actually use both. Articles such as the ones cited, and discussions on some other web fora (especially the one devoted solely to analog) are the exceptions, not the rule. So, in fairness, I would hope that categorizations of film shooters as elderly grandparents who are treating others as if they cannot comprehend are also the exception.

[Coelus]

Originally Posted by Big Dog

Well, I won't take your remarks personally, if you won't take the following personally:

Not all analog workers dislike or distrust digital. In fact, truth be known, most of us actually use both. Articles such as the ones cited, and discussions on some other web fora (especially the one devoted solely to analog) are the exceptions, not the rule. So, in fairness, I would hope that categorizations of film shooters as elderly grandparents who are treating others as if they cannot comprehend are also the exception.

As with many things, one bad apple..........
I guess the real point of my rambling comment is that the rest of the world keeps going no matter what you wish to keep the same. You can either roll with it and add to it; or hang on so long that people will think you're a fool. Film isn't dead anymore than digital isn't photography. It's the same old vs new argument that's went on since the first technology was threatened by something new. I don't take it personally. But I think too many people do. As far as film shooters being elderly grandparents, I know that 's not true. My story was an illustration. What I have noticed is that the only people I've seen on the anti-digital bandwagon are far from being youngsters. Yes, it's a stereotype. But stereotypes often have an uncomfortable common truth behind them.

[jeffkohn]

Here's a response from Paul Butzi that I think sums up my position pretty well:

http://photomusings.wordpress.com/20...-even-napping/

[Big Dog]

(edit) Oh, never mind ...

[boldimagery]

Are we really debating this? What next is it photography art? Writing with light is what photography means. What the heck is a modern digital camera doing? Does it record light? Your telling me just because a latent image is not created it is somehow different. The Physics are the same. Unless you can make 1+1=3. Then digital is still photography. I tell you what I will send you a nice RA-4 printed image. You tell me which medium I shot it on.

Go to my website... I ain't fakin' it! Me? My darkroom is in the basement. Still wet with the safe light on, and I stink of stop bath.

[LadyShutterBug]

It doesn't matter what you work your field with. It still takes good seed, good soil, and good weather to bring in a bumper crop. And don't treat your grandchildren like they're beyond comprehending you, or think you to be irrelevent. We stand on the shoulder of giants and we know it. We just need you to be patient and let us reach for the sun too.

you said that very well.

thank you.

[iCe]

Is digital photography photography? I'll consult with the one person's opinion that I value above all others...and get back to you on that..

Mike?
Yes
What do you think, is digital photography photography?
Yes
Thanks
You're welcome

Ok I'm back... Yes it is.