Tru Photography and digital

[caitlinb]

Do you consider digital to be true photography? Since all of the alchemy has been taken out and light is utilized in a different way during exposure. Obviously I have my own theories here but I would love to hear yours.

 

[JDS]

The medium is different (film vs. digital sensor), but that doesn't make it any less 'true' necessarily.

In my mind I compare it to writing - say you're writing a book. Just because you're not writing your draft on paper and using your computer instead doesn't make it any less 'real' when it comes to the final product.

 

[adolan20]

I think photography has nothing to do with the equipment but more of capturing a moment. Capturing a picture that moves someone or allows them to wonder. Something that tells a story or captures emotion is what I think is true photography.

 

[Alex_B]

Do you consider only photography on glass plates true photography? Or do you think this modern film thing is worth being called photography?

 

[Christie Photo]

Do you consider digital to be true photography?

Yes.

 

[Zatodragon]

With as much of the displaying medium becoming digital frames and TVs, digital is just as true as film.

Just as in typing a story doesn't make it any less ture than hand-writing it.

 

[Drake]

Do you consider only photography on glass plates true photography? Or do you think this modern film thing is worth being called photography?

Exactly. The technology is advancing and so is photography. You can't say film photography is better just because it is older, more "original".

 

[craig]

I am trying to get in touch with my sensitive side as opposed to the "this topic is played beyond belief" side. That being said I think photography has always been a marriage (all be it a rocky one) between art and science. I for one embrace current technology and always have. If YOU enjoy film then shoot it. The process of photography depends on what you are trying to achieve. Digi, film, hell you can even coat your own emulsion on to anything you want. Only thing that matters is the validity and the quality of the final product.

Love & Bass

 

[Garbz]

Chemistry? What are you on about. True photography is about converting photons to electrons via complex electronic devices, assigning a logical number to them, and storing them in a grid. The art of the darkroom is about playing with the numbers. If I wanted chemistry I would have been born 40 years earlier.

My opinion is sarcastic. Sorry but I think the method has nothing to do with photography, but true photography is about replicating a frozen moment in time. Whether it be via film and chemicals, CMOS and digital processing, or printing a photo on a leaf using the photosynthesis of plants (i've seen it done).

True vs non-true would be for me to take a video camera and then extracting a frame out of it.

 

[Alpha]

They're just different media, plain and simple. Then there are alt-processes, which can be way out there but thoroughly unique. Pick one that suits you.

 

[Antithesis]

I think the end results are going to attempt to achieve a similar goal. Granted, there are things that you can do with film that you cannot do with digital and vice versa.

One big plus is that digital has made the learning curve of photography so much more attainable for the masses. This can be a good or thing or bad thing depending on your point of view.

 

[sabbath999]

I think true photography is done only by Polaroid cameras, on the little square instant print film.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Do you consider digital to be true photography? Since all of the alchemy has been taken out and light is utilized in a different way during exposure. Obviously I have my own theories here but I would love to hear yours.

There are a number of points here.
First you must define what you mean by photography.
Then you must define what you mean by 'true' photography.
'True' photography implies that there must also be an 'untrue' or 'false' photography. So next you need to explain how you discriminate between them - and you are going to be hard pressed to come up with a logical answer that will withstand critical examination.
Then there is the matter of 'alchemy'.
To the best of my knowledge, traditional photographic processing has nothing whatsoever to do with alchemy.
Alchemy's chief aims were to transmute base metals into gold and discovering the elixir of life. Non of the standard texts on alchemy mention photography.
And finally, how, exactly, is light utilised 'differently' in the two processes?
The underlying principle of the two is a physical reaction with light causing electron migration, essentially the same mechanism in the two processes. It is the output which is different.

 

[Iron Flatline]

True photography is about capturing images, not discussing it online.

 

[gendarmee]

I really like that blue caddy macro on ur blog.
It's awesome, looks like you actually snapped a full size car!