Impression of "digital" photography

[RedHot]

I visted a photography club meeting this week and there was mention about next week's competition in regards to slides and digital slides being judged together.

Now most of the attendees were probably age 55+, but when asked if anyone wanted to argue for having them judged together: no one raised their hand; however, when asked for anyone wanting to argue why the should not be judged together about 10 people raised their hands. There was then no discussion, just a comment that they would be judged seperately.

It seems more and more than the public's perception of "digital" photography is that the photographer is showing/producing results that are fake and not true to the actual subject/setting due to manipulation/addition/removal/over enhancement in photoshop. Popular Photography Magazine does nothing to help this with their "tricks and tips" they regularly have.

Most people put faith that someone shot with film is more real to the actual subject; yet the average person doesn't know film can be scanned and have the same things done to it in photoshop and then printed.

I am much more leaning towards film for what I photograph, but if the world is rushing to digital, what will the world' perception be of all photography? Will anything be "real" anymore in the mind of the common person who views art or newspaper reader?

[S.Horton]

Good post, good topic...........

It is the people involved manipulating the medium; one is just faster (digital).

Art: Won't matter. Probably accelerates change a bit.

Journalism: No changes. People (in the USA, at least) seem to believe anything they see, read or recall, regardless of source or background. As evidence, I offer the electoral process.

[DrPablo]

If you're a digital photographer and you want to be perceived as authentic, the solution is simple. Don't allow unreality to enter your photo. Ansel Adams' pictures looked nothing like the original scene -- but his exposure and darkroom procedures were so masterful that you'd never know. So if you heavily manipulate an image, you need to convince your viewers that you didn't touch a single pixel. It needs to look 100% internally consistent and technically flawless. Go ahead, put a herd of unicorns in your photo. As long as it looks flawless, and the only implausibility is the subject and not the technique, you're fine. But better to take a digital picture and not manipulate a thing than to make crappy HDRs, or sharpening halos, or bizarre selective coloring choices, or whatever.

Think about the scene from Star Wars, where Obi Wan gives Luke his father's lightsaber. "Not so clumsy and random as a blaster. A civilized weapon for a more civilized age".

It's much the same with film vs digital. There is a world of possibilities with digital photography, but there is also a lot of information overload with it, and with manipulation a lot of potential for abuse. Film often strikes people as having somewhat of a nobility to it.

Part of this may come from the fact that digital cameras are more a spoke sticking out of the computer (along with MP3 players and PDAs and GPS units, etc). Digital photography married photography with the computer age.

On the other hand, film photography remains a spoke that sticks out of the preindustrial and early industrial art world -- and it's forever tied to the rise of impressionism and modernism in art.

That aside, the ease of digital manipulation will always carry a certain public skepticism with it. But it's not so much the fact that it's digital that causes this prejudice or hesitancy. It's the fact that people do 'abuse' digital technology by falsifying news photos, or even just playing pranks with photos.

While film is not wholly innocent from abuse, the fact that a film capture engrains your subject in something tangible or physical, not something "virtual", makes it seem more authentic.

Not that any of this should be of concern to photographers. We should shoot what works for us individually, and we should stop these retarded debates about pixels and resolution and which one is better. The better medium is the one that lets us best achieve our vision.

[Binning]

Redhot, I think you tapped more into a older professional generation outlook more than a popular outlook. I'm not sure if the longtime film photographers view digital and PP as steroid enhanced, and thus an unfair process. I have enormous respect for the film guys and I sense you do to. I think the public judges an image at face value and don't really care about the sausage making that goes into it.

In painting, there is oil and pastel and numerous other forms. Film still is an incredibe form and digital is another form. In the end, most people value the final product and that can be entirely subjective. I wouldn't get too caught up in the artists view of what is acceptable. I would focus more on what the public, purchasers, value.

High end film/slide has certain advantages over digital, but I would think most of the market probably doesn't care. All they care about is the quality of their picture.

[FlyingPhotog]

Good post, good topic...........

It is the people involved manipulating the medium; one is just faster (digital).

Art: Won't matter. Probably accelerates change a bit.

Journalism: No changes. People (in the USA, at least) seem to believe anything they see, read or recall, regardless of source or background. As evidence, I offer the electoral process.

Wow, it took only one reply to send this discussion very far afield...well done. :confused:

[Naturalist]

You make a very interesting (and valid) poing redhot.

The VP of our camera club, for example, is a master at PS but mentioned to me casually over dinner one night that he has never even shot film at all...ever.

I, on the other hand, grew up admiring the photos I saw in the various National Geographic Society publications beginning when I was 13 years old. Once I found out that their photographers shot Kodachrome exclusively I, too, began shooting Kodachrome.

Why? Because when you looked at that mounted slide the proof of your mastery of the craft was right in front of you. You either had the shot, or you did not.

Because digital images can be manipulated so much afterwards, the final image speaks nothing or your skills as a photographer and, instead, only represents your skills as a PS technician.

Thus, I am more impressed by a latent image on a transparency that I ever could be of a blatant statement in digital.

[DrPablo]

Because when you looked at that mounted slide the proof of your mastery of the craft was right in front of you. You either had the shot, or you did not.

Because digital images can be manipulated so much afterwards, the final image speaks nothing or your skills as a photographer and, instead, only represents your skills as a PS technician.

Thus, I am more impressed by a latent image on a transparency that I ever could be of a blatant statement in digital.

I'm as much of a film buff as there is on this site, but I don't share this idea. Slide film is one thing, but print film, incl B&W, is by no means a finished product when you get the negative. It is meant for manipulation of contrast.

I think when one looks at the work of Ansel Adams or some of the modern darkroom masters like John Sexton and Bruce Barnbaum, you realize that the darkroom is as much part of how they achieve their photographic vision as is the original capture. The ability to selenium or gold or sepia tone B&W prints, or the ability to dodge and burn, doesn't lessen the skill it took for a certain capture.

[airfrogusmc]

I think great photographers are still much like the large format west coast F 64 group. You not only need to be able to capture what your minds eye saw in the scene but to reproduce that image you saw in a final print.

Adams, Weston, Cunningham, Caponigro, DeCarava, Siskind, Meyerowitz, Stieglitz, I could go on all night all made great exposures but through control of negative processing and very creative print controls were all able to make final prints of what they envisioned at the time of exposure.

Adams said making the exposure was writing the score and printing it was performing that score.

If you don't see the process through I think you are cheating your vision. The final print is what matters. If these photographers had not of manipulated their craft (as any artist does) into the final print the world would be missing some of the finest photographs ever taken and finest prints made.

[FlyingPhotog]

I think great photographers are still much like the large format west coast F 64 group. You not only need to be able to capture what your minds eye saw in the scene but to reproduce that image you saw in a final print.

<Snip A Bit>

Very, very well said... Nail--->Head

[Karl C]

Excellent posts, Paul and AirFrogUSMC.

Thank you.

[mspringfield]

Coming from a film background I feel the same way about PP as I do the government. "Less is better". I am from the get it right at the moment of exposure school of thought. To me that is what photography is about to a large extent. I think that too many "photographers" today are not interested in that aspect of it. I have heard way too many people who have the attitude of "shoot RAW and fix it later". To me that is not photography, it just pushing a button. Its not that I am against adjusting images in photoshop but I am more interested in someone's photography skills than their photoshop skills. IMHO a good balance is about 80-20 (photography-photoshop) or less.

In response to the OP, I think that both film and digital should be judged together unless it it obvious that an image has been manipulated either way.

Michael

[airfrogusmc]

And no one was better at getting exposure right than Adams. In fact he redefined getting it right, in the sense of getting the exposure right as he saw the scene, which can be very different than the way the scene really was. Expose for shadow and develop the negative for highlight is the basis of the zone system. I agree with his philosophy that great exposure is the key; but to not finish making the print as close to the way you envisioned the scene when you made the exposure is not putting your stamp on the final print. I don't think that theres a print I make that I haven't done some PP to and my exposures are very good. To me a great photographer has got to be very good at both to be able to fully express his/her vision. It should go beyond good exposure and what the photographer captured but into what he and only he saw. To me thats what separates the so-so from the really good.

[Box Brownie]

Interesting argument because it takes back a goodly few years,pre digital, the camera club I joined was IMO very polarised i.e. those with vast darkroom experience and those without a darkroom or the experience.

I was in the later not having a darkroom and only limited experience of working in one. I shot entirely slide stock for my own pleasure and club comps.

Now with the advent of digital I take the view that "less is more" - exposure corrections are quite acceptable and cropping as needed (slides were always masked as needed!) and of course sharpening as required. If an image has been further manipulated then the beauty of that is in the eye of the beholder. My postings hereabouts say what I have done & any that I have experimented with PS are blindingly obvious.

As for whether a comp should lump the film slide with the digital, well isn't it all about the image??? If the members/audience do not like an image film or digital they will not vote for it as most will be able to tell if they are seeing a more heavily PPed image and vote as they see fit.

[canonpink]

I visted a photography club meeting this week and there was mention about next week's competition in regards to slides and digital slides being judged together.

Now most of the attendees were probably age 55+, but when asked if anyone wanted to argue for having them judged together: no one raised their hand; however, when asked for anyone wanting to argue why the should not be judged together about 10 people raised their hands. There was then no discussion, just a comment that they would be judged seperately.

It seems more and more than the public's perception of "digital" photography is that the photographer is showing/producing results that are fake and not true to the actual subject/setting due to manipulation/addition/removal/over enhancement in photoshop. Popular Photography Magazine does nothing to help this with their "tricks and tips" they regularly have.

Most people put faith that someone shot with film is more real to the actual subject; yet the average person doesn't know film can be scanned and have the same things done to it in photoshop and then printed.

I am much more leaning towards film for what I photograph, but if the world is rushing to digital, what will the world' perception be of all photography? Will anything be "real" anymore in the mind of the common person who views art or newspaper reader?

That's fallacious for there are many a "printer" that used to use former darkroom techniques to achieve similar results to what photogs today use PS for. Those you are talking about are purists that cannot see past their own ignorance.

[airfrogusmc]

CP Purism is more a purity of vision than technique. Adams was a purist but he manipulated his medium as any artist, musician would do to fully express himself. You have to get past that technique in order to be able to fully express yourself. Its not unlike a musician learning a musical instrument. You don't want to be limited by your lake of technical skills. Its funny the ones that haven't taken the time to learn the disciplines are always the ones that are critical of it. I've never heard a photographer that said DAMN I wish I wasn't such a good printer or I wish that I had never master photoshop. I've never heard that. I think that mastering all parts of what you do is important and can only help you create your vision and its just as important with digital as it is with film.

[Box Brownie]

Film images were manipulated since the start of photography, possibly most infamously in a political sense when Stalin had Trotsky removed from images taken of all the party leaders standing on the Kremlin mausoleum when he fell out of favour later to be murdered with an icepick. The advent of digital has just made such things easier and more straightforward.

A film protaganist who works in colour or B&W will have made choices about his film stock and the paper he will print it on and as such will be printing his vision of the reality he photographed, that "reality" would likely be different from someone else standing right next him at the time taking the same picture doing their own thing in a darkroom next door! Does that make the resulting image from either of them less pure or wrong because they have "different vision"?

[Karl C]

I agree with AirFrogUSMC and Dr Pablo about photography being a complete process, from taking the shot to final print. However, what good are excellent PS (or darkroom) skills when camera skill/technique is poor? From my perspective, in today's photography world, a number of photogs do have the attitude of "shoot in RAW, fix later in PS". To me, that's not being involved with the entire process. In order to create excellent work, one should be skilled in all aspects of the process. To a certain degree, film did force a photog to be skilled and knowledgeable with the camera. There wasn't any histogram or LCD screen to "chimp"; either the shot was correctly exposed (or very close to it) or it wasn't.

On some levels, I think everyone should develop their skill and "vision" first using film before moving onto digital with it's ability for instant feedback. Does that position me as old-school? Probably. But in order to walk, one must learn to crawl first.

Keep in mind, this in my personal belief and not meant to denigrate those who elect a different method. In the end, the individual photog develops their "vision" in their own way.

[RedHot]

But the general public doesn't know about film manipulation, they think that what is recorded on the negative is what it looked like. And for the most part, digital post processing/editing (I hate the term photo editing, or comment on my ediiting skills as I consider processing RAW files to be "developing my images as someone with film would") is just trying to get the image look as it would as film would record it. Digital is weaker on recorded color accuracy, constrast, etc. I only process my RAW files to make them look how the scene actually was.

I've decided that my landscape/wildlife, which is what I like to shoot, I'll be shooting film aside from the times where digital has a clear advantage: fps needed or faster shutter speeds needed in variable lighting conditions. And family events will likely be digital too.

I'm considering doing art festivals/shows next year and I've noticed photographer's booths sometimes have a small bio that usually states shooting film if film was used but I rarely see shooting digital mentioned in them. I would have a mix of film and digital and I fear people asking: Is this one film or digital? Oh, this one's digital so it's not real, but this one here is a real photograph because it's film.

I did like the previous post about making the digital images not look unreal, which I never do anyways.

[Nick_b]

Why is it okay for painters to change reality to suit their inner vision but it's not okay for photographers to do the same? Should an image not be judged on it's artistic merit instead of the way in which it was created?

Is a good image not a good image if it was photo shopped?

[Karl C]

Why is it okay for painters to change reality to suit their inner vision but it's not okay for photographers to do the same? Should an image not be judged on it's artistic merit instead of the way in which it was created?

Is a good image not a good image if it was photo shopped?

Possibly because everyone knows a painter is creating their "vision" which may not reflect true eality. However, with photography, people might hold the expectation the image should closely match reality, as defined by the general public or society. I don't know for sure.

I suspect most of the arguing is amongst photographers. This is where my reference between film and digital comes into play. One cannot deny that today's digital technology has created a whole different mentality about photography. Undoubtedly, there are individuals who think they're "photographers" because they possess excellent PS skills (the "fix in PS" attitude). Problem is they truly never learned to be a photographer. From my humble perspective, to be a excellent photographer, as discussed by AirFrogUSMC, one should be well-skilled in every aspect of photography; not just PS.

[RedHot]

Why is it okay for painters to change reality to suit their inner vision but it's not okay for photographers to do the same? Should an image not be judged on it's artistic merit instead of the way in which it was created?

Is a good image not a good image if it was photo shopped?

People know a painter is going to present his work in his style of painting, exaggerating certain features, colors used, etc. It's very difficult for a painter to produce a painting with brushes that very accurately depicts the scene.

But people think of a photograph as the scene as it was is crunched into the film - poof it's done. But with digital there is no "crunch" but it's a medium that is as easy as pudding to manipulate. I know the merits of digital photography, but I'm sure many people have "funny faces" with pictures of their family by distorting lips, faces, etc. and this is where the public's perception of digital photography likely has become skewed.

I can imagine people asking "did you add that bird in there or those nice clouds?". On dpreview, user Daniella a while ago posted an incredible looking image of a snow scene for which she added a wolf to it. It was more art than a photogrpah.

[Nick_b]

People know a painter is going to present his work in his style of painting, exaggerating certain features, colors used, etc. It's very difficult for a painter to produce a painting with brushes that very accurately depicts the scene.

But people think of a photograph as the scene as it was is crunched into the film - poof it's done. But with digital there is no "crunch" but it's a medium that is as easy as pudding to manipulate. I know the merits of digital photography, but I'm sure many people have "funny faces" with pictures of their family by distorting lips, faces, etc. and this is where the public's perception of digital photography likely has become skewed.

I can imagine people asking "did you add that bird in there or those nice clouds?". On dpreview, user Daniella a while ago posted an incredible looking image of a snow scene for which she added a wolf to it. It was more art than a photogrpah.

I thought photography was art?

Here is a quick example. This photographer is obviously photo shopping. I like it. Is it less of an image because it was photo shopped?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/469586506_ba59729c95.jpg?v=0 (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/469586506_ba59729c95.jpg?v=0)


More of his work can be found here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/parc/sets/72157600112175399/

Just to be clear I'm not saying that it's okay to change photos and pass them off as reality. I'm talking about the art side of photography.

P.S. I'm not a huge fan of HDR but if done well it can be quite nice in landscape photos. I feel some of the photos on that site aren't so nice but he does have some nice work there.

[cosworth]

I'm president of my local club. We judge our competitions, our showings and our outings all the same. One uses a film projector, one uses a slide projector. When it's print night, no on can tell usually.

For a club to be discenrning between the two is elitist and not very growth oriented. My club is 65+ EASY. The oldest member has a slide scanner for crying out loud. For film users to decry digital as cheating or fake, well these people obviously don't have a darkroom at home. I'm typing on my darkroom right now. cheaiting? No, easier.

So your club is doing this backwards. Photography is photography. The president of the club should take it by the reigns and make it a level playing field in the minds of all the club members.

[breal101]

The fix in PS attitude is far from new. Back in the film days people just said let the lab deal with it. We have so much more control now, so who's complaining? Not me for sure. Would you give a painter a box of 64 color paints and then say he can only use 12 of them if he wants to be a true artist? I worked in pro labs many years ago, we saved a lot of bad exposures, one of the reasons I started shooting professionally was seeing the raw work of others and saying heck I can do that.

[Nick_b]

Here is a quick example of how I use PS to alter my photos.

First the original. This was converted in LR and imported to PS to resize and sharpen. No other adjustments were made outside of the basic RAW conversion.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k320/livelifelivepics/copy.jpg


Now for the edited version. can you spot the difference? Am I cheating the viewer? Am I creating a false reality? Does this cross the line?

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k320/livelifelivepics/The%20One%20Night%20Band/IMG_3477-Editcopy.jpg

[Doug Pardee]

I think that most of the folks here are missing the big point:

The issue was about judging slides.

I doubt that anybody was saying that there's anything "wrong" with darkroom manipulations or Photoshop manipulations. Those are a fundamental part of print photography.

But when slides are judged, what's being judged is the photographer's ability in photographic capture. Naturalist's comment (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=4015735#post4015735) covered this pretty well, including this observation: "when you looked at that mounted slide the proof of your mastery of the craft was right in front of you. You either had the shot, or you did not."

I suspect that the primary issue is that it seemed unfair to compare edited photos against those that could not be edited.

[DrPablo]

I think that most of the folks here are missing the big point:

The issue was about judging slides.

When slides are judged, what's being judged is the photographer's ability in photographic capture.

But the problem is the following: what did the scene actually look like? And is the goal of photography (outside of pure documentary settings) to exactly reproduce a scene, or to skillfully evoke a scene?

If we're in agreement that slide film is the least manipulated and most pure imaging, as post processing is rarely very involved and what you see is what you get, then how do you explain this?

Same scene, same day, same time. First shot was on Fujichrome Fortia, which is a slide film that's even more saturated than Velvia. Second was on Fujichrome Astia, which is a less saturated slide film.

Which one looks better or worse is not the issue. The issue is that even with slide film, you're choosing a film specifically to determine how you want the scene to be rendered. How is that different than doing it through post-processing? It's pre-processing, i.e. it's also not related to the exposure.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/78608542.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/78608487.jpg

[cosworth]

I'm the only person in my club who has photoshop. All our digital "slides" are judged as slides. Slide film slides sit alongside them.

Slide infers the presentation media, not the photograph. Yes, slides are untouched, but most of the digital slides (barring in camera settings) are usually untouched as well.

Old debate, time to get over it. Photography is Photography and it's evolving. If the club in question wants to have a non-altred slide night then that;s fine, digital RAW files converted right to JPEG with manufaturers recommended sharpening to overcome Ir filter allowed.

If they want to have a slide night, where the presentation form is slide, then have at 'er. Clubs really need to grow up...evolve... accept... learn...

To stand still is to go backwards.

[DrPablo]

To stand still is to go backwards.

But sometimes to go backwards is to go forwards. ;)

It's best to free yourself from the typical prejudices, rhetoric, and pointless debate, and pull ideas from as many places as you can. There's truth in almost every side of these arguments.

[canonpink]

CP Purism is more a purity of vision than technique. Adams was a purist but he manipulated his medium as any artist, musician would do to fully express himself. You have to get past that technique in order to be able to fully express yourself. Its not unlike a musician learning a musical instrument. You don't want to be limited by your lake of technical skills. Its funny the ones that haven't taken the time to learn the disciplines are always the ones that are critical of it. I've never heard a photographer that said DAMN I wish I wasn't such a good printer or I wish that I had never master photoshop. I've never heard that. I think that mastering all parts of what you do is important and can only help you create your vision and its just as important with digital as it is with film.

??? - you seem to make my point; was that your point?

[RedHot]

I think that most of the folks here are missing the big point:

The issue was about judging slides.


No, that wasn't my point. It was the beginning of my background as to the opinion of digital photography versus film.

It's the overall perception of digital vs. film. I doubt that this photo club would be able to pick out which were digital if the slides were scanned (because I am under the impression that slides on a projector will look much better/more detail than digital pictures on a digital projector due to the low projector resolution which is typically 800x600 to 1025x768) and both projected through the digital projector.

And my real question was the steady rolling of digital taking over film in photo journalism especially, will the public have fair that why are are seeing in magazines, newspapers are "real" images even though they are digital or will they have the thought that things were enhanced, added or removed to what they are seeing.

A prime example is a couple months ago there were images of a rocket attack in the middle east where a PJ caught the rocket in the air about 20 feet in the air before it landed. Based upon that image alone, most people where calling it fake, it didn't look real, and blowing the image up to see if they could see it being photoshopped in. Then the other frames surfaces that showed the impact, etc. and showed that yes it was captured digitally and was "real".

[airfrogusmc]

??? - you seem to make my point; was that your point?


Yes I was agreeing with you. Just expanding a bit. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

No, that wasn't my point. It was the beginning of my background as to the opinion of digital photography versus film.

It's the overall perception of digital vs. film. I doubt that this photo club would be able to pick out which were digital if the slides were scanned (because I am under the impression that slides on a projector will look much better/more detail than digital pictures on a digital projector due to the low projector resolution which is typically 800x600 to 1025x768) and both projected through the digital projector.

And my real question was the steady rolling of digital taking over film in photo journalism especially, will the public have fair that why are are seeing in magazines, newspapers are "real" images even though they are digital or will they have the thought that things were enhanced, added or removed to what they are seeing.

A prime example is a couple months ago there were images of a rocket attack in the middle east where a PJ caught the rocket in the air about 20 feet in the air before it landed. Based upon that image alone, most people where calling it fake, it didn't look real, and blowing the image up to see if they could see it being photoshopped in. Then the other frames surfaces that showed the impact, etc. and showed that yes it was captured digitally and was "real".

I guess what you should consider is does it matter if the image has been fabricated in photoshop or not? Didn't matter to Jerry Uelsmann that he combined negatives to make surrealistic images. He did it with film but I guess my question if it were done with digital would it make it any less valid? I don't think so.
http://www.creativephotography.org/graphics/ccpjpg/uelsmann.jpg
http://www.tfaoi.com/cm/4cm/4cm146.jpg
Really what matters is the final image. Does it work? If not it will never matter how it was produced. I think in areas of photojournalism and documentary photography there is a need for ethics as there always has been. A while back a photojournalist was fired from a major paper for cloning something out of an image. I don't think it matters whether film was used or if its a digital image as long as the image works.

[Fotoshooter]

There is nothing wrong in being a purist. There is nothing wrong in using all the tools of post production to make an unusual image. What is wrong is denigrating a method. There were no grand scale accusations of Picasso painting lies and Henri Cartier-Bresson was not ridiculed for missing opportunities by not cropping.
The public needs to be educated that photography is not a medium of reality and should not be assumed so unless in a news or science forum, where the truthfulness of an image is held to review. Fakes have been made with film and digital. It is not the medium but how it is presented.
Getting back to the original post. I think another aspect of the way the members voted had to do with the perceived feeling of being judged against a medium which offered an unfair advantage. You may argue that they have the opportunity to digitize their film for the same post production advantage. But it is their decision not to use it. Think of race tuned cars up against street models. Even with equal ability there is a technological advantage. Film and digital are different media. In camera clubs they do not judge color and B&W together. They should not be required to judge film and digital together.

[DrPablo]

The public needs to be educated that photography is not a medium of reality and should not be assumed so unless in a news or science forum, where the truthfulness of an image is held to review.

I hope you see the conundrum you've raised, though.

Imagine this question being posed to you: "if photography isn't a medium of reality, then what is, pray tell?"

What else in life is closer to a medium of reality, other than your senses themselves?

Photography is an icon of realism. It's inescapably linked. Many critics think that the development of impressionism and abstraction was a direct response to the advent of photography.

[airfrogusmc]

I hope you see the conundrum you've raised, though.

Imagine this question being posed to you: "if photography isn't a medium of reality, then what is, pray tell?"

What else in life is closer to a medium of reality, other than your senses themselves?

Photography is an icon of realism. It's inescapably linked. Many critics think that the development of impressionism and abstraction was a direct response to the advent of photography.

There are a great deal of art historians that believe that and the timing would certainly correspond to that (first photo 1837 1850 photography becoming popular and impressionism 1860s. You suddenly had a medium that actually could recreate reality which then freed artist to paint the way they thought and felt about their subject. In fact it was the straight photographers early 1900s that quit trying to imitate paintings by turning their back on pictorialism that caused photographs to start being considered art. They took the properties that are unique to photography and made those kind of photographs. That separated photography from painting thus allowing it to stand on its own.

[DrPablo]

There are a great deal of art historians that believe that and the timing would certainly correspond to that (first photo 1837 1850 photography becoming popular and impressionism 1860s. You suddenly had a medium that actually could recreate reality which then freed artist to paint the way they thought and felt about their subject. In fact it was the straight photographers early 1900s that quit trying to imitate paintings by turning their back on pictorialism that caused photographs to start being considered art. They took the properties that are unique to photography and made those kind of photographs. That separated photography from painting thus allowing it to stand on its own.

I've always been attracted to this explanation. That said, I think it's too insular to look at the contemporaneous painting and photography of the 19th and early 20th century without looking at the broader context. The fact that is realism and naturalism (i.e. more extreme realism) were present in literature as well -- and by the beginning of the 20th century there was a progressive rejection of realism in literature, not just painting.

Think of some of these 19th century writers like Dickens, Flaubert, Tolstoy, etc, and how painfully detailed their descriptions were of the physical world of their novels. Something about modernism, however, ran for the hills away from this. Think of James Joyce, TS Eliot, Samuel Beckett, William Faulkner.

I think the point is that towards the end of the 19th century and early 20th century philosophy and literature were taking a huge inward turn, towards the human mind. Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky, in their own ways, were revolutionary in this, and then Freud sealed the deal. So the whole general movement of human thought was towards the tortured world of human consciousness.

So the developments in painting, especially in the age of Picasso, were contemporaneous with similar developments in literature and philosophy -- and even music in its own way (rejection of 8-tone music for 12-tone music).

Photography was certainly part of this in the visual arts. But photography came at the beginning of an era of three things that completely changed the world of ideas and art: 1) industrialization, 2) modern science, and 3) modern war. It's hard to study photography's influence in isolation of these three movements, which in and of themselves have everything to do with one another.

[airfrogusmc]

Its like any great art movement all the arts are involved, music, literature, architecture, painting and photography moved to straight at the same time other things were moving more abstract. Photography did take strong influences from industrialism and some literature was also moving in that direction (Upton Sinclair). No artist lives in a vacuum just like the abstract expressionists (DeKooning, Pollack, Franz Kline) cool jazz, (Davis, Coltrane) playwright Sam Sheppard, writer Kerouac and photographers like Aaron Siskind.

So Doc you're saying art was influenced by a general movement to more abstraction independent of photography?

I'm more in the thought that it was moved because artists were now free to no longer have to make realistic interpretations and the other arts followed. And photogrhers in the early part of the 20th century Steiglitz, Strand, Steichen, deliberately moved away from pictorialism with straight photography.

[Nick_b]

Very interesting discussion going on here. Does anyone have a favorite book on the subject.... or you could just continue your discussion for a few hundred pages more, if you don't mind. :)

[DrPablo]

So Doc you're saying art was influenced by a general movement to more abstraction independent of photography?

I'm more in the thought that it was moved because artists were now free to no longer have to make realistic interpretations and the other arts followed. And photogrhers in the early part of the 20th century Steiglitz, Strand, Steichen, deliberately moved away from pictorialism with straight photography.


I think it was part of a philosophical and intellectual movement, not just part of an artistic movement. Modernism was a wholesale rejection of Romanticism, which was the artistic theme (in all art forms) in the 19th century. Romanticism celebrated the "sublime" (think of Albert Bierstadt's paintings), and the individual experience (think of Thoreau). Romanticism was a giant self-celebration on the part of 19th century intellectuals.

But then that was destroyed by many different fronts. Darwin showed the world that we were animals. Nietzsche just shredded the moral basis of the Judeochristian tradition. Then probably the most devastating attack on 19th century thought was Freud, who showed that humans aren't inherently reasonable -- both how we behave but how we think are sublimations of subconscious forces.

And simultaneous with this was the dramatic change in art. Think about the great Russian novelists of the 1880s. While Tolstoy was writing hyper-Romantic era literature, Dostoyevsky was focused on the dark, self-destructive, irrational, flawed human. And the height of this movement was in Joyce and Faulkner and others, with their stream of consciousness style and rejection of traditional writing styles.

And in painting the same thing was happening. Realism was rejected not just for its realism proper, but because it was highly idealized and devoid of a human perspective. But starting with the impressionists and moreso with Van Gogh and expressionism, artists began to impose themselves on their paintings for all the same reasons, before they finally with pure abstraction rejected any reality and representation altogether. And finally, this happened in music as well, though the development of modern music (at the same time as modern painting and literature!) was largely about rejecting the whole form of traditional composition, not just the schmaltzy emotion of 19th century music.

I'm sure photography influenced the aesthetic chosen by painters, but I think painters were swept up in the mindset of their times, which was of course bigger than just photography.

[Fotoshooter]

To better explain my view, just as painting is used for realism or expression, photography is a medium that can also be used for realism or expression. It should not be held to a narrow use. And even when used for realism we tend to adjust the image to make it look good. Most of us are even unable to judge the correct color, shade, or tone of something when separated from it. We have never had a technology that could accurately display all colors correctly. We use lenses that that show things in different perspective than our eye sees. So just as a cartoon can look like a person it is not quite reality, but it can be closer to the truth.

[Karl C]

This may be a painfully obvious post but I'll go on record as being a "dim witted" child...

Within photography, there are realists and artists. I would argue most mainline media photojournalists are realists whereas someone like Ansel Adams is an artist. The difference being what each is communicating to the viewer. There is a third genre - a "tweener" - both a realist and artist, a label that can be liberally applied to a wide group of photographers.

Dr Pablo's posts have been excellent reads. I am not educated enough to discuss how 19th and early 20th century photographers were influenced by early art. Or vice versa.

Time for more reading...

[airfrogusmc]

I do think there is some validity in your thought that no one singular event usually has enough strength to influence an entire art movement but its usually a combination of things and they usually all influence one another. With some things caring more weight than others but certainly all having impact.

Its like the age old question does art influence history or does history influence art? (chiken----egg):confused::lol:

[airfrogusmc]

Very interesting discussion going on here. Does anyone have a favorite book on the subject.... or you could just continue your discussion for a few hundred pages more, if you don't mind. :)

Libraries are full of books on the subjects. A couple of decent books on the history of photography are

The History of Photography by Beaumont Newhall fairly general.
Photography: Essays & Images also by Beaumont

The Art of Fixing a Shadow: One Hundred and Fifty Years of Photography it was a companion book to a very large exhibit but full of great photographs and history.

Books on Impressionism, 19th Century Art, 20th Century Art, German Expressionism(Die Brucke), Bauhaus.

You could also read the writings of some of the authors that Doc has mentioned. I think Joyces A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is a great example as is The Dubliners.

Also Upton Sinclairs The Jungle.

See movies by filmmakers like Lang and Fredrich Wilhelm Murnau..

And photographs by Man Ray, Stieglitz, Steichen.

This could go on for a while but that will get you started.

[Curtis N]

I visted a photography club meeting this week and there was mention about next week's competition in regards to slides and digital slides being judged together.An interesting thread. Here's my take on what you witnessed at that meeting.

1) Even the old fart film shooters know darn well that photography is at least a two-step process. Capture it, then process it.

2) But shooting slide film is a bit different. Not much you can do after the shutter closes, if you're presenting the slide itself for competition.

3) So it's not about photography skills in general, but that particular subset of skills required to shoot slides. Choose the right film. Use lens filters if you want to manage the color. No lattitude on exposure. Perfect composition required, etc.

NASCAR has restrictor plate races and non-restrictor plate races. Racing both kinds of cars side-by-side just wouldn't be fair. Competitions are pointless unless everyone has to play by the same rules.

[DrPablo]

So just as a cartoon can look like a person it is not quite reality, but it can be closer to the truth.

There have been studies by pediatric developmental specialists looking at when it is that infants can recognize a human face.

They've taken smiley faces -- just the circle with 2 dots and a line, as well as circles with 2 dots and a line randomly arranged in the circle (i.e. not a smiley face).

Between 2 weeks and 1 month of age, the babies will fix their gaze on the one that looks like a smiley face.

So it's not quite reality, as you say, but it's hardwired into us to make that leap at 2 weeks of age. Sure, there are survival reasons for that, for recognizing other humans.

But it's a direct extension of that to see that abstraction still can have a very heavy foot in reality and our recognition of it. I have a lot of African masks, which are all abstracted human faces, and these are emotionally very powerful things to look at. This is also true of the very abstract masks from other parts of the world, like the Arctic and from Papua New Guinea.

Someone who was very influenced by African masks, of course, was Pablo Picasso. The simplification of recognizable things was very much part of cubism, which was one of the flagbearers of the modernist movement. I remember going to the Musee Picasso in Paris where there is a sculpture of a bull's head that he made using a bicycle seat and the handlebars (as horns). It's so simple, its constituent parts are so recognizable, and yet it's so perfect as a bull's head.

That, in my mind, is a truly virtuoso work of art. The greatest artists are alchemists. They are the ones who can look at a block of marble and see David inside. They are the ones who will mount their camera on a tripod, look at a scene in front of them, and look through the scene, not at the scene.

That's the exact rationale behind Ansel Adams' quote: "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."

[RedHot]

An interesting thread. Here's my take on what you witnessed at that meeting.

2) But shooting slide film is a bit different. Not much you can do after the shutter closes, if you're presenting the slide itself for competition.

3) So it's not about photography skills in general, but that particular subset of skills required to shoot slides. Choose the right film. Use lens filters if you want to manage the color. No lattitude on exposure. Perfect composition required, etc.


What's the difference between a straight out of camera JPG and slide? :)

You can easily have slides made of digital pictures. The camera store/lab I have develop my film and print my digital 4x6s has an option when uploading to their site for printing to have a slide made. I think the cost is $2.50. You could also scan a slide, fix it up, then have it made into a new slide.

[Duder]

Where did people get the idea that what's captured on film/slide, or RAW files for that matter, represent 'reality' in the first place?
Whether it's a chemical or technological process that results in image capture, it's a necessary step to process the raw negative to produce a final image/print. That process can be automated, or the work of a skilled master, but at the end of the day, the negative has been processed to produce the desired result.

[StewartR]

Here's my take on what you witnessed at that meeting.

1) Even the old fart film shooters know darn well that photography is at least a two-step process. Capture it, then process it.

2) But shooting slide film is a bit different. Not much you can do after the shutter closes, if you're presenting the slide itself for competition.

3) So it's not about photography skills in general, but that particular subset of skills required to shoot slides. Choose the right film. Use lens filters if you want to manage the color. No lattitude on exposure. Perfect composition required, etc.

NASCAR has restrictor plate races and non-restrictor plate races. Racing both kinds of cars side-by-side just wouldn't be fair. Competitions are pointless unless everyone has to play by the same rules. I think that's a pretty perceptive analysis, Curtis. It would be interesting to know whether this is indeed the reason for the OP's camera club having two separate competitions. If so, then it would seem that they're probably more intelligent and perceptive and fair-minded than they've been given credit for. On the other hand they could be ignorant Luddites.

[Tixeon]

A few years back I remember making an image of our local post office, an attractive building. I set the camera & tripod up across the street just after sunset & exposed for the exterior but did not advance the film. After it got dark I made a second exposure based on the interior lighting of the building. The results were a beautifully exposed image. Oh, I forgot to mention, I was using 35mm Kodachrome 25 & this was long before digital.

Now, my question, since this was made on slide film, was it true to the scene or was it considered manipulated such as something put together in photoshop?

[cosworth]

We see in video and shoot in photo. Nothing is representative of what we see. Film buffs who decry digital should be prevented from any in camera effects? No...by that same token they can't dismiss digital as cheating or simplified.

What is better communication? Radio or some guy on a horse that travels 100 miles with a sealed wax letter? Both get the job done. One is nostalgic and on the surface more secure, another is instant but requires more equipment to ensure correct data is secured moved.

The debate will rage for years until the last film manufacturer goes out of business and the last person who ever used film passes on. For me, I'm on the bandwagon now. :)

[Wilt]

Improving sharpness, altering color balance and contrast, even using HDR to improve the capture, those have their equivalents in film. Bolstering the color saturation and lowering the brightness on a sunset, has its film equivalents. Altering the rendition with filters is similar to toning or cross processing.

But the thing you can do with digital far too easily compared to what can be done in film, is to put someone in a setting which never occurred even remotely...like taking a photo of yourself and sticking yourself in front of the Taj Majal petting a Bengal tiger, even though you've never left the borders of Rhode Island! That's what bothers me.

So where do we draw the line?

[cosworth]

Colour seps are easy to do actually. I think they are easier to do than unsharp masks.

One thing digital doesn't do easy is replicating PMT. The usual CS3 halftone filters suck.

[DocFrankenstein]

what will the world' perception be of all photography? Will anything be "real" anymore in the mind of the common person who views art or newspaper reader?
I don't really care of the world's perception of photography. I don't care if "they" think it's manipulated or not... I make prints and pictures.

[Karl C]

Now you don't even need to be onsite with your camera anymore.

DSLR Remote Pro (http://www.breezesys.com/DSLRRemotePro/index.htm)

DPReview (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07100201breezeremote.asp)

[Fotoshooter]

Some use manipulating an image to lie and cheat. Others use it as an outlet for their vision, dreams and imagination -- to widen horizons. Do not disparage a useful method because it is misused.

[Vortex99]

The way I see it. Film to digital is just another advance in the world of Photography.
Just another medium, that we use to share our vision of the world... IMO