Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Is ours 'real' photography? |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
There is nothing new with the manipulation of photographic images. It has been going on for at least 100 years. I suggest you try to find the book “South with Endurance” featuring more than 100 pages of superb photos by Frank Hurley of Shackleton’s Antarctic Expedition of 1914-17. Hurley was a master of manipulation by combining negatives to improve a picture. This was not to deceive or to alter history but to make a dull scene more attractive or to add weight to an event. A good before and after example is on pages 210-211 and there are other examples in the book. For today’s photographers this book is a reality check when you see details of Hurley’s camera equipment, film, plates etc, and the conditions he had to work in.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Argentique? I often see this as a reference for darkroom stuff and that's the name of the thread in the french equivalent of this forum. And here is one blog about street photography using film: http://www.eschon.com/largentique-un...-photo-de-rue/. Try google.fr and the search terms of 'photo de rue argentique' and you will see what I mean. And yes i would say that anyone I know who speaks French does differentiate between digital or not.
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
To answer your original question, I don't think there's anything wrong with your description. It simply derives from your opinion of what is a photograph and what isn't. The fact that some will agree with you and others won't doesn't mean you have to bow to some form of political correctness.
It's true to say that most prints are in some way manipulated. You can even say that attaching a yellow filter to give a bit more detail to a sky is manipulation. It doesn't alter the fact that you are "writing with light" which is what the word means. The problem with digital manipulation is that it seems so commonly overdone that I find myself looking at the manipulation rather than the photograph. Because the hundreds of such pictures that I have seen look so similar to me, I find them trite, unimaginative and boring. You could argue that what you do on a computer isn't writing with light, but darkroom work certainly is. I find that my main criterion is that my attention is on the picture and not what has been done to achieve the effect, and in the great majority of cases a normal darkroom print conforms to my idea. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Wow - that's getting a bit esoteric!
I think I prefer to make a distinction between the transient perception of light and actually recording it. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The first limited-edition fine-art ink-jet reproductions were made in the 1980s on the Scitex Iris inkjet proofing printer (thus the erstwhile name Iris Prints) but the inks, intended to mimic the colours used in CMYK photomechanical printing, had a reputation for rapid fading in daylight. I asked two French neighbours if the word had an alternative slang ('argot') meaning and they didn't think so. But this is the rural south-west, nearly a thousand kilometres from the sophistication of Paris. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
However, I don't agree with the last part, which appears to have been added since I first read the original quote in another post. Whether you're developing film in a darkroom or working with a digital image in a computer you're still “processing data”. The original image – film or digital – is caused by direct physical causation, that is, by light hitting either a photosensitive chemical compound (emulsion) or a photosensitive electronic device (CCD, etc.). I fail to see why the veracity of a photographic image is dependent on the medium on which it is captured. What Maris appears to imply is that by “re-photographing” the original image to make a print that we're preserving or enhancing the veracity of it simply by photographing it again. (Added "photographicness”?) Quote:
The ease with which a medium can be manipulated should in no way detract from it's inherent veracity: it's people who perpetrate frauds, not machines. As for “digi-graphs”, there's no such thing: like it or not, digital cameras capture light in exactly the same way as a film camera, so they're just a much a photograph as if the light were recorded on film. It's still painting with light, but with a different kind of paint. (I wonder if, in the days of glass plates, that pictures from the then new-fangled roll film were disparagingly referred to as “roll-graphs”?) To reiterate, I have to say again that no one photographic medium is inherently more “real” than the other. The camera never lies? Perhaps this was a typographical error, the original statement being “the camera forever lies”, passing off, as it does, a static, two-dimensional representation as “reality”. Lets be honest here, this is merely the old “film is better than digital” argument, with the morality of film being considered superior to digital. If that isn't a conceited, arrogant attitude in itself, then I don't know what is. Perhaps now that digital is starting to better film in technical respects, the moral argument is the only one left, although trying to argue that a piece of chemically-sensitised plastic is morally superior to a light-sensitive semiconductor device (or vice-versa) is frankly ludicrous. I got back into film photography as, at the time, it was superior to digital in terms of resolution and the like. As soon as this was no longer the case, I went out and bought a DSLR which, to be honest, gives far better results than I ever got from 35mm and even gives scanned roll film a run for it's money. Whether or not I'm morally inferior because of this is not something I lose any sleep over. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
that's what I like about this website its in the name FILM AND DARKROOM. so if you feel that digital is better than film ,you must be on the wrong website ,it is obvious that people on this site will criticise digital and support film ,my personal opinion is that I cannot stand anything digital ,digital cameras ,computers, and printers.
so lets be proud of what we do , www.essexcockney.com |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Marketing Ploy From The Real Camera Co. | vanannan | Auctions of Interest | 12 | 8th February 2014 01:37 PM |
20x24 PROSEAL Vacuum Press - A Real Bargain! | Tom Stanworth | Sale or Wanted | 0 | 21st March 2013 05:28 PM |
Suggestions for 'REAL B/W' magazine reading? | Terry S | Photography in general | 7 | 29th June 2012 10:29 AM |
Zen Photography | cliveh | Art and aesthetics | 26 | 23rd April 2011 10:31 AM |