Ran across a man..

[Unmanedpilot]

Who stated that he did not believe digital photography is photography.

I believe highly photoshoped images need to be in their own category, especially if initially taken with a digital camera. Matter of fact, I don't even consider digital capture as photography. Photographs created with a digital sensor I consider to be "Digital Imagery".
Of course, the end result of "photographs" and "digital imagery" are prints. So when it gets right down to it the prints achieve the same goal, to showcase images for people to view, critique, debate, and ponder.

I've been doing photography since 1988, both as an enthusiast and a pro. The question is what is photography? Photography has been around since around 1820. Up until around 2002 most people were still using film and darkrooms. So up until that time that was photography. So digital sensors come onto the scene and all of a sudden its labeled photography because you still capture an image using a camera and a lens.

The word "photography" comes from the Greek word (phos) which means light + (graphis) which means "stylus" or "paintbrush" meaning "drawing with light." Ok, I buy that its photography in the sense that you paint with light but digital photography only encompasses half of what traditional photography did for 180 years!! Traditional photography used the darkroom to pass light through a negative, to project a latent image onto a paper coated with silver halide. It took intelligence, a brain, a skill learned through books or a class to know how to expose film properly, develop it, and create a permanent or semi permanent photograph. With traditional photography, you "painted with light" literally from start to finish. In digital "photography", you only capture an image on a digital sensor and then the process of photography that mankind knew for roughly 180 years ends right there.

This is why I believe digitally captured prints to be digital imagery and photographic prints to be photographic imagery or photography. So yes, photoshoped images should be in their own category.

Something that especially caught my attention mostly was the part

"Traditional photography used the darkroom to pass light through a negative, to project a latent image onto a paper coated with silver halide. It took intelligence, a brain, a skill learned through books or a class to know how to expose film properly, develop it, and create a permanent or semi permanent photograph."

So according to him beacuse I don't use a darkroom, I'm stupid? I've never met someone like this until now but have heard of them before.

I can see where he's coming from, but still it seems fairly narrow minded. Has anyone else run across people like this? I have already posed a response to him about what I think about digital photography (I can post it if anyone is interested) but I was wondering if anyone else had opinions to why or why not Digital images can be considered Photography.

 

[Steph]

This has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum already. A quick search will reveal very similar threads. Here is such a thread.

 

[Phranquey]

That particular quote looks familiar....I think this was posted not too long ago by somebody......



My argument to this would be:

-I still require the knowledge of proper exposure.

-I still develop the photograph, just by digital means now.

-And my "stylus" is now my printer instead of my enlarger.


A lot of people enjoy the tradition of film, myself included, but it sounds like someone refuses to give up their horse & buggy.

 

[Unmanedpilot]

Well I'm sorry you've discussed it so much,

I did a few searches which resulted in nothing. I looked at all the pages in this forum and saw nothing. It doesn't pertain to only digital or only film so I didn't search the film or digital discussion Q&A.

I figured its been talked about before, very little hasn't, and I did not see it. If people are tired of talking about it then they can ignore my post here.

 

[Arch]

Yea it was just last week when a thread similar to this was flying around... but no matter.

Basically, this guy is an idiot. He is an old timer that cannot accept that his beloved hobby/profession is being swamped by a huge number of people who now own digital cameras.... so he posts this kind of rubbish to try and justify his narrow minded opinion.
Its harsh... but its true, the best advice i can give is to simply ignore people like this, they are clueless.

 

[Steph]

Well I'm sorry you've discussed it so much,

I did a few searches which resulted in nothing. I looked at all the pages in this forum and saw nothing. It doesn't pertain to only digital or only film so I didn't search the film or digital discussion Q&A.

I figured its been talked about before, very little hasn't, and I did not see it. If people are tired of talking about it then they can ignore my post here.

Sorry. I (and probably others) did not mean to be rude and I just wanted to point you in the direction of a thread which was relevant to your question.

 

[Phranquey]

Sorry. I (and probably others) did not mean to be rude and I just wanted to point you in the direction of a thread which was relevant to your question.

Certainly not....

 

[mrodgers]

I'm finding with every hobby I get interested in and research about (I join dozens and dozens of forums when I get interested in something) every single hobby is like this.

for example, I got the RC flight bug a few years ago. There you have the old traditional gas engines (film) and the new electric engines (digital). Also there is building the aircraft from a kit or scratch (film) and ready-to-run kits (digital) that you just take out of a box, slap the wing and landing gear on and go fly. The traditional gas users or plane builders have the same opinion, that electric planes is not flying RC. I can't see how it's not, you are throwing an airframe into the air and flying whether gas or electric.

I'm actually really amazed at how the RC flying hobby and photography hobby has so many parallels. From the gas vs. electric in comparison to film vs. digital as well as the 3,000 posts per day on the forum of "which plane would you recommend to a beginner" in comparison to "which dslr would you recommend to a beginner" threads on their respective forums, RC flight and photography are so similar.

 

[Garbz]

Pick a hobby any hobby and you'll find idiots like this with their heads crammed firmly up their ass.

Interesting that he makes it all about the dark room though. I remember reading a book on the guide to some of the worlds most famous photographers. I read about one of them who never developed his own film.

 

[ksmattfish]

...it seems fairly narrow minded....

And very ignorant of the history of photography. Enlarging and film were technological developments just like digital, and when they were introduced they were berated as inferior or impure and not "real photography" by some just as digital is today. Collodion plate photographers would see little significant differences between 35mm roll film and digital: they would perceive it all as extremely idiot proofed and full of automations.

When someone tells me that digital isn't photography that's okay with me, because it's been obvious for over 100 years that any goofball can be a photographer. It's nothing to brag about. I'd rather be considered an artist. Do what fulfills you, and don't worry about what labels people need to apply to it to make it fit within their small minds.

When people want to judge art based on process or gear it's often because they understand their work will not stand on it's own without excuses, such as "Yes, I know the photograph is boring, but I shot it with an 8x10 camera! It was very difficult to create this lousy photo."

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." -Henri Cartier-Bresson


"Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence." -Paul Strand

"To say of a picture, as is often said in its praise, that it shows great and earnest labor, is to say that it is incomplete and unfit for view." -James McNeill Whistler

"The camera for an artist is just another tool. It is no more mechanical than a violin if you analyze it. Beyond the rudiments, it is up to the artist to create art, not the camera." -Brett Weston

"We don’t take pictures with cameras – we take them with our hearts and minds." -Arnold Newman

Keep creating photos with your heart and mind, and let the photo geeks bog down in the details of gear and process.

And study up on the history of photography so you have a good idea how ignorant these sorts of folks are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism

 

[abraxas]

The analogy I'm reminded of is of amplifiers- there are sounds a bass amp produces, where the notes are shaped by vacuum tubes, that a digital bass amplifier can never replace or duplicate--Full, rich, fluid, almost liquid sounds--And that all seems logical to me. Then I think, hey, wasn't it all acoustic before electricity? Same old same old. Ad nauseum.

Now I think about something the aircraft pilots I worked with as a kid used to say, "Who's going to care in 20 years?"

 

[ksmattfish]

The ease of digital photography is overstated; as evidence I present all the crappy photos I still make.

 

[Unmanedpilot]

No worries Steph, I'm a part of a few forums and kinda was expecting something like that as a response. Its just what happens on places like this. My response was also a bit rude and I am sorry for that.

Thanks for all the reply's! Its true how any hobby can be replaced with another. You will always have people who think beacuse they do it its special and nobody is as good as they are. You can have it in any hobby and its unfortunate but I suppose we will never get away from people like that.

 

[Phranquey]

I'm finding with every hobby I get interested in and research about (I join dozens and dozens of forums when I get interested in something) every single hobby is like this.

for example, I got the RC flight bug a few years ago. There you have the old traditional gas engines (film) and the new electric engines (digital). Also there is building the aircraft from a kit or scratch (film) and ready-to-run kits (digital) that you just take out of a box, slap the wing and landing gear on and go fly. The traditional gas users or plane builders have the same opinion, that electric planes is not flying RC. I can't see how it's not, you are throwing an airframe into the air and flying whether gas or electric.

I'm actually really amazed at how the RC flying hobby and photography hobby has so many parallels. From the gas vs. electric in comparison to film vs. digital as well as the 3,000 posts per day on the forum of "which plane would you recommend to a beginner" in comparison to "which dslr would you recommend to a beginner" threads on their respective forums, RC flight and photography are so similar.

You hit the nail on the head with that one with the ARF vs build debate.

I'm on an RC helicopter forum, and the discussions, debates, and questions are very similar in nature..... the JR vs Futaba radio debate, gas vs nitro, this heli vs that heli for 3D, what radio / heli is best for the newbie, etc, etc, etc........

 

[ksmattfish]

The reason I resisted digital as long as I did is because I thought to admit that digital photography was viable was to dismiss all the time and effort I'd put into learning film and the traditional darkroom. I thought it made me obsolete along with my film cameras. Once I realized that most of the really important knowledge for making decent photos was transferable I mellowed out.