Opposing Conceptions of Photgraphy

[skieur]

The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.

Some seem to define photography as "capturing a moment in time" while implying that using filters, postprocessing etc. is distorting the accuracy of the "moment" and therefore somehow changing photography into creative design with no relationship to reality. Another way of expressing their view is: accurate content is more important than visual impact or photographic method.

Others see photography as creating a visually attractive/artistic image that emphasizes or makes a "statement": emotional or otherwise about some aspect of our world. Making us see things, we would not ordinarily see, or feel emotions that we might not ordinarily feel. Their view would be that the visual effect of the image is more important than depicting the reality in the original scene. To put it another way: A beautiful image is a beautiful image irrespective of how it was created and irrespective of the reality in the original scene. Filters, postprocessing, HDR, solarization, panoramas, etc. are all means to creating an image with visual impact and that is the objective.

Needless to say, the first side cannot communicate with the second side very well because their concepts of photography are so totally different.

skieur

 

[white]

Do we need to drag Eddie Adams into this again?

I'm inclined to believe there are no truths in the photograph. It is purely what photographers choose to emphasize.

 

[Alpha]

Right. My belief is that these "conceptions" are purely egoistic and that is precisely the reason one cannot communicate with the other. In my view, photography is only egoistic insofar as it requires intent to take a picture. Beyond that, I think it's OK to be egoistic- good, even, for some people. But conflating one's egoistic investment in the "art" with any notion of objectively describing what it is is patent nonsense. I think that's self-evident.

 

[skieur]

Right. My belief is that these "conceptions" are purely egoistic and that is precisely the reason one cannot communicate with the other. In my view, photography is only egoistic insofar as it requires intent to take a picture. Beyond that, I think it's OK to be egoistic- good, even, for some people. But conflating one's egoistic investment in the "art" with any notion of objectively describing what it is is patent nonsense. I think that's self-evident.

 

[Garbz]

Photographers who believe photography is anything at all simply have their heads up their arses. Anyone who thinks that capturing a single quick moment in time where a picture absolutely must reflect what can be seen in reality should look at the first ever photograph, and note that there are shadows on both sides of the building, so where is the sun in the given moment?

But the saddest part of all is that these people don't seem to realise that all sides of the argument are wrong and the only true form of photography is the form that you yourself believe.

This discussion appears on this forum every few months. It appeared here 4 years ago. It likely appeared here when TPF first was born. The discussion existed before digital cameras became widespread. It exists in "The Darkroom Handbook" published in 1981. It existed long before then when people were still painting colour onto their prints.

We'll see this discussion again in 2 months time. It'll be brought up again next year, and in 100 years time when the human race can simply tweet or squirt or whatever the communication flavour of the year is, right between our own subconsciousness there'll be photographers looking like mental patients banging their head against the wall while shouting abuse at themselves (or so it'll look to passers by) simply because whoever is on the other end of the line simply doesn't get Photography.

We go nowhere as a collective species.

And every photo will be tonemapped regardless if it's a HDR or not.

 

[Mike_E]

Like anything else, a photograph needs context to give it legs. With out that it might as well be a rock. Except that it's not heavy.

or round.

or hard really.

or mineral.

or..

 

[table1349]

DANGER WILL ROBINSON - DANGER - DANGER!!!

What it is Robot???

I SENSE AND IMMENSE AMOUNT OF PHILOSOPHICAL BS HEADING IN OUR DIRECTION.

Oh, that's just Dr. Smith coming back from somewhere. :lmao::lmao::lmao:



(Lost is space. TV show from the 60's):mrgreen:

 

[erichards]

IMHO The image reflected in a photograph is never anything more than a perspective and is always therefore 'tainted' by the photographer,(their experiences, mood, tastes, etc...), the 'proof' is in what is left out of the frame and what is captured, the amount of set up, lighting etc...
No image is a pure and non-distorted representation of that moment in time.

 

[DennyCrane]

Ask any cop what happens when he interviews 5 witnesses at a crime scene. Every one will give a slightly different description of what they absolutely KNEW as the "truth". Photography is no different. Get 5 photogs to take the same shot and tell them to make the picture as true to life as possible and get back to me on how that worked out.

And there's this...

DANGER WILL ROBINSON - DANGER - DANGER!!!

What it is Robot???

I SENSE AND IMMENSE AMOUNT OF PHILOSOPHICAL BS HEADING IN OUR DIRECTION.

Oh, that's just Dr. Smith coming back from somewhere. :lmao::lmao::lmao:



(Lost is space. TV show from the 60's):mrgreen:

Dr. Smith! Take your hands off the boy!

 

[supraman215]

DANGER WILL ROBINSON - DANGER - DANGER!!!

(Lost is space. TV show from the 60's):mrgreen:

What are the 60's?


:lmao:

 

[Garbz]

(Lost is space. TV show from the 60's):mrgreen:

Ha false! It's a movie from the late 90s

 

[maris]

The reason for the "heat" in some of the discussions seems to me to be different conceptions of the nature of photography.

Some seem to define photography as "capturing a moment in time" while implying that using filters, postprocessing etc. is distorting the accuracy of the "moment" and therefore somehow changing photography into creative design with no relationship to reality. Another way of expressing their view is: accurate content is more important than visual impact or photographic method.

Others see photography as creating a visually attractive/artistic image that emphasizes or makes a "statement": emotional or otherwise about some aspect of our world. Making us see things, we would not ordinarily see, or feel emotions that we might not ordinarily feel. Their view would be that the visual effect of the image is more important than depicting the reality in the original scene. To put it another way: A beautiful image is a beautiful image irrespective of how it was created and irrespective of the reality in the original scene. Filters, postprocessing, HDR, solarization, panoramas, etc. are all means to creating an image with visual impact and that is the objective.

Needless to say, the first side cannot communicate with the second side very well because their concepts of photography are so totally different.

skieur

For thousands of years the basic workflow involved in making realistic pictures of things has, at its core, stayed the same.

The first step is to have illuminated subject matter.
Light from this subject matter is focussed as a real optical image on a megapixel sensor.
The megapixel sensor transduces the image into information that travels as electrical pulses up a cable.
The cable feeds the electrical pulses into a memory where they are temporarily stored.
The picture memory is sent to a processor where it may be modified, perhaps stitched with other picture files, and given the HDR treatment.
The resulting picture file is prepared for output via a mark making device which then place spots of paint or ink on a surface.
The accumulation of spots form the picture.

People familiar with digital picture making will recognise the separate roles of camera, computer, and printer in the short discourse above.

People familiar with painting and drawing will find the short discourse just as familiar. The lens and megapixel sensor are of course the artist's eye, the memory and processor are in a brain, and the mark-making device is the artists arm, hand, and brush.

Digital picture making is a remarkable technical achievement in that it mechanizes and makes easy what artists have been labouring at for millennia. What practitioners of digital picture making haven't realised is that they are fully legitimate participants in the grand artistic stream that includes Leonardo da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Vincent van Gogh, and thousands of other luminaries!

And then there is photography. I mean the art practiced by Louis Daguerre, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, Diane Arbus, and millions of others great and not so great. Here there is the same illuminated subject, a lens, and a sensor but that is all. The sensor suffers chemical changes and becomes the picture itself. There is no transducer, no signal, no memory file, no data processor, and no mark-making device to make a picture via painting by numbers.

Digital picture making and photography are radically different things that become muddled with one another because the pictures they make can be superficially similar.

That, I think, is the root cause of the original poster's observations

 

[Derrel]

Des Moines, Iowa, Sept. 29, 1872:
I think the only true photography uses wet plates, a wooden tripod, and a camera made entirely of wood,metal,and leather. These young whippersnappers shooting on dry plates with their fancy 1- and 2-second exposure times are ruining the art of photography. Some of them are even experimenting with instantaneous exposures using some type of magnesium shavings or powders, which doth emit a frightful sound and a brilliant lighting effect some like the flash in a pan of a flintlock rifle or pistol, but oh,so many times more brilliant. It is said by the practitioners of this new art that photo-graphs can be exposed using the infernal dry plates sold by Eastman, Harrison, and some local manufacturers of dubious repute--with nothing more than the flash of the burning magnesium powder with no need for any actual light from the great orb we call The Sun. Even though the Lord hath not blessed it, it seems that this new breed some contemptuously call "instantaneous photographers" will soon displace those of us who insist on coating our own plates and exposing them within minutes, before the sensitized coating has become dried. These new "instantaneous photographers" shall surely ruin the art of making of photo-graphs, and are to be looked down upon.

 

[gsgary]

The only side of photography i can't be doing with is where a photograph has been taken and it's out of focus, boring and someone plays with it in photoshop a calls it art

 

[Chris of Arabia]

The only side of photography I can't be doing with is where a photograph has been taken and it's in focus, excruciatingly detailed and someone sharpens with it in Photoshop a calls it an accurate representation of what was in front of the camera

Your mileage of course may vary...