The Golden Age of Photography

[limr]

Lew, it's the same old battle for me. Where you wear blinders allowing photography to be only "art", I still stand by the opposite. If I wanted to be an artist, I'd take up painting and put every blade of grass where I wanted it to be.
Leonore and myself were having a chat a while ago, where we discussed the, sometimes, boredom of the "perfect photo". Razor sharp, perfect exposure and contrast with a perfect composition. We also discussed how the look of a print produced with mediocre lens on a mediocre camera is sometimes missed by both of us. (Sorry for dragging you in on this Leonore)
I first marveled at the abilities of the digital world. If there's an unwanted utility pole in my shot, just remove it. There are so many ways to manipulate a photo, it can become an image of fiction, not fact. For me, as time goes on, I'm beginning to feel corrupted, and lazy instead of satisfied and accomplished.
I feel there is enough room in photography for both film and digital. While neither has to fully agree with the other, both should be shown all respect for the medium they choose.

No worries, Rick

It's all true. Because of the ability to make sharper, more saturated, more technically perfect images, this has become the standard of greatness. If any deficiency in exposure or sharpness exists in the photo, these are flaws to be eliminated - and these days, this means 'shopping them out. It's pretty clear that 'technical' has a narrow definition, and 'greatness' is being defined just as narrowly.

And the assumption - that was explicitly stated, actually - is that film cannot reach this level of greatness.
"I grew to accept that the average digital images were inevitably 'better' than slide images. We, I, would see images taken on film and printed in the darkroom and accept less technical achievement than would be accepted or required in a digital image." (Lew)

The medium itself is not capable of reaching this new technical greatness and the photographers themselves just stagnate and shoot in a technical rut.
"That said I suspect what you see at the camera clubs is that those with film reach limits too easily and settle into established patterns of behaviour. They've learned up where they are comfortable and have stopped." (Overread)

(Btw, I can assure you that I have not reached the limits of what I can do with film and I have not stopped learning just because I'm shooting film.)

"Technical. (adj): 1610s, "skilled in a particular art or subject," formed in English from technic + -al (1), or in part from Greek tekhnikos "of art; systematic," in reference to persons "skillful, artistic," from tekhne "art, skill, craft" (see techno-)."

So 'technical' doesn't - or shouldn't - just mean digital process. And yet film and digital shots are being judged by the same technical details even though the process is different and the outcome will inevitably be different. People talk about "technical perfection" and they automatically mean what a digital camera can produce. I've seen plenty of film shots that could be considered technical masterpieces. They don't look the same as a technically perfect photo from a digital camera, but they are technically perfect nonetheless.

Oh lord, do I feel sorry for this poor dead horse...

 

[photoguy99]

They limitations of wet processes forced us, on good days, to consider how on earth we were to make something out of this.

Now that we have a universal process, Photoshop, universal in the sense that any visual effect of gum bichromate or whatever can be done and undone with a few clicks, we are now constrained only by our own feeble imaginations.

To our great detriment.

 

[sashbar]

Film is friendly and forgiving. Digital is cold and ruthless. New amazing technical opportunities bring enormous amount of frustration to many photographers who are artistically aware and sense this rapidly growing dissonance between vast technical opportunities of the digital medium and their own limited creative abilities. The more a camera does all technical stuff for you, the more you are left exposed with your own creative side, or complete lack of it.
Blessed are those who are happy shooting wallpapers, they will be happy.

 

[bribrius]

Lew, it's the same old battle for me. Where you wear blinders allowing photography to be only "art", I still stand by the opposite. If I wanted to be an artist, I'd take up painting and put every blade of grass where I wanted it to be.
Leonore and myself were having a chat a while ago, where we discussed the, sometimes, boredom of the "perfect photo". Razor sharp, perfect exposure and contrast with a perfect composition. We also discussed how the look of a print produced with mediocre lens on a mediocre camera is sometimes missed by both of us. (Sorry for dragging you in on this Leonore)
I first marveled at the abilities of the digital world. If there's an unwanted utility pole in my shot, just remove it. There are so many ways to manipulate a photo, it can become an image of fiction, not fact. For me, as time goes on, I'm beginning to feel corrupted, and lazy instead of satisfied and accomplished.
I feel there is enough room in photography for both film and digital. While neither has to fully agree with the other, both should be shown all respect for the medium they choose.

No worries, Rick

It's all true. Because of the ability to make sharper, more saturated, more technically perfect images, this has become the standard of greatness. If any deficiency in exposure or sharpness exists in the photo, these are flaws to be eliminated - and these days, this means 'shopping them out. It's pretty clear that 'technical' has a narrow definition, and 'greatness' is being defined just as narrowly.

And the assumption - that was explicitly stated, actually - is that film cannot reach this level of greatness.
"I grew to accept that the average digital images were inevitably 'better' than slide images. We, I, would see images taken on film and printed in the darkroom and accept less technical achievement than would be accepted or required in a digital image." (Lew)

The medium itself is not capable of reaching this new technical greatness and the photographers themselves just stagnate and shoot in a technical rut.
"That said I suspect what you see at the camera clubs is that those with film reach limits too easily and settle into established patterns of behaviour. They've learned up where they are comfortable and have stopped." (Overread)

(Btw, I can assure you that I have not reached the limits of what I can do with film and I have not stopped learning just because I'm shooting film.)

"Technical. (adj): 1610s, "skilled in a particular art or subject," formed in English from technic + -al (1), or in part from Greek tekhnikos "of art; systematic," in reference to persons "skillful, artistic," from tekhne "art, skill, craft" (see techno-)."

So 'technical' doesn't - or shouldn't - just mean digital process. And yet film and digital shots are being judged by the same technical details even though the process is different and the outcome will inevitably be different. People talk about "technical perfection" and they automatically mean what a digital camera can produce. I've seen plenty of film shots that could be considered technical masterpieces. They don't look the same as a technically perfect photo from a digital camera, but they are technically perfect nonetheless.

Oh lord, do I feel sorry for this poor dead horse...

you know, this isn't the first time in history the technical has been used to blaspheme a photographers work only to be later thrown under the bus and the photographer suddenly considered a artistic genius. While technicals are important to learn I dare say they are what we fall back on to discuss when nothing else is in the photo of merit. some of the more notable photographers were ridiculed for not following technicals. so if someone says that your medium or result isn't compositionally correct or technically perfected what does that actually mean? As long as you know your compositions and technicals I don't think it really means a damn thing. Falling back on such things is more a sign of lacking in a societal perspective and photographs without much merit other than technicals. Often a sign of the practioners too. It is easier to learn the rules and recite them than actually make photos that mean anything. This is where you run into the b.s. "that telephone line should be cloned out, that tree should be cloned out blah blah blah" Some are so stuck on the composition and technical they cant see "the forest through the trees".... And after it is all said and done another technically correct , pleasing to the eye, but utterly worthless photo is manufactured. I put this mentality in the same one as "lacks interest" and "what is the subject?" Looking through photographers of earlier times many would be blasphemed on all grounds. And at the end of the day it just comes down to shoot what you want, how you want. What others make of that and do with that is THEIR problem not yours.

 

[Nettles]

We are now in the Golden Age of Photography.

Good photography, whatever that is, should elevate itself. But being intertwined with artistic expression, just about anything goes. So what's new?

Photography is about inspiration, creativity, vision, technical abilities. It's always been that way, so I'm not sure there can be a Golden Age. Instead we have the never ending application of vision and ability through whatever tools are available.

And there are so many opinions nothing definitive can be offered. Just more pictures.

 

[bribrius]

It sounds to me like you place to much weight on technical detail.

The breadth of vision we see in Victorian photography simply dwarfs what we see today on photo sharing sites, despite the fact that there might be ten orders of magnitude more images.

I am not familiar with that book, so possibly it is not very representative, though.

lew does anyway, reading some his posts he seems to be at this for six years or so and learning processing the last few. Kind of like the restaurant shot he was processing for whatever reasons when I kind thought the photo was only worth a jpeg snap shot to start with (and probably more valuable as a unprocessed snapshot in my mind). Replicating is a learning tool. I think he is In a learn phase himself on processing and technicals, still trying to copy previous styles with his photoshop. Half of these questions he posts I believe revolve more around him and deciding the road for his own photography than anything else . I don't blame him though I am just starting such a phase trying to learn some at least basic processing. Mostly because I need to know technicals and processing if for no other reason than to not be ignorant. Give lew a couple more years maybe he will be out of the phase knowing whatever he wanted to know and his mindset may change again. He reads this book and suddenly the thread is made. He posts his original view and uses the feedback to judge how sound the view is. Then writes in his blog. learning himself at the same time. I think this is how lew "filters". cause he/ We all go through phases and constantly learn is my guess. Next year I am going to be in the phase where everything is tilted, on the third line, selective color and out of focus. Be warned. But I will know more about processing.

 

[sleist]

It sounds to me like you place to much weight on technical detail.

The breadth of vision we see in Victorian photography simply dwarfs what we see today on photo sharing sites, despite the fact that there might be ten orders of magnitude more images.

I am not familiar with that book, so possibly it is not very representative, though.

lew does anyway, reading some his posts he seems to be at this for six years or so and learning processing the last few. Kind of like the restaurant shot he was processing for whatever reasons when I kind thought the photo was only worth a jpeg snap shot to start with (and probably more valuable as a unprocessed snapshot in my mind). Replicating is a learning tool. I think he is In a learn phase himself on processing and technicals, still trying to copy previous styles with his photoshop. Half of these questions he posts I believe revolve more around him and deciding the road for his own photography than anything else . I don't blame him though I am just starting such a phase trying to learn some at least basic processing. Mostly because I need to know technicals and processing if for no other reason than to not be ignorant. Give lew a couple more years maybe he will be out of the phase knowing whatever he wanted to know and his mindset may change again. He reads this book and suddenly the thread is made. He posts his original view and uses the feedback to judge how sound the view is. Then writes in his blog. learning himself at the same time. I think this is how lew "filters". cause he/ We all go through phases and constantly learn is my guess. Next year I am going to be in the phase where everything is tilted, on the third line, selective color and out of focus. Be warned. But I will know more about processing.

Perhaps you should listen more and talk less.

 

[The_Traveler]

You seem to have a strong bias towards digital processes and what you perceive as “technical perfection.” It seems to matter a great deal to you, because your question implies conflict by its presence in art. That’s all well and good, but probably makes you less than objective when judging art. A judge who is giving points for the nostalgia of a process seems inappropriate; it’s another type of bias. Photos displayed for judging are meant to be viewed as a finished work.
I hope you can appreciate that this assessment could have been made 100 years ago, word for word!

It seems that rather than talk about whether or not the digital age is the Golden Age of Photography, which is my opinion, those photogs with a heavy investment in traditional methods want to prove that I am somehow biased, incorrect or wrong. Instead of discussing the message, you end up discussing the messenger.

Film is alive and kicking.
My understanding of your post is that it is a thinly veiled dig at film. It seems to me that you feel insecure about your efforts using digital; that you feel photographers who use film are given a head start. I would argue that this is nonsense and you should concentrate on your own preferred form of the art and let others do as they please.

Do you think, or are you suggesting that those using film shout about it from the rooftops - in order to get special consideration? This may happen and I can understand that you might find this annoying, but not everyone using film behaves in this way. Just as not everyone using digital is obsessed with its rapid technical advancement. There are those in both camps who are content to get on quietly with the important goal - photography.

I never said anything about 'shouting from the rooftops, but, wherever I judge, slide (film) images are judged independent of digital images; and the slide images are, on the average, lower in technical quality. Yes, a master photographer can produce wonderful slide images but for the average photographer, it is truly hit or miss.
If you don't believe that the average B&W image from film is less impressive than the digital images, then I can't disabuse you of that fantasy. Inevitably the film and darkroom origins are obvious in looking at the print and afaic, this awareness of the process is not relevant.
I have said before - and believe - that the only importance of technical issues are when when they interfere with the viewer's appreciation of the scene. To that end, It is rare that I see a b&w image, produced in a wet darkroom, that achieves the kind of pass-through invisible technical perfection that a good digital image produces.
I look for the image as an end point not to appreciate that it was shot with 'Kodak Superduperextamonoclourchrome 20054 XTC' and printed on some specific paper.

When I lived in Colorado, my fishing partner just worshiped his bamboo fly rods and used them, regardless of the situation and the required additional care - even when the rod itself didn't work as well for what we were doing. I knew I could keep on fishing for another fifteen minutes while carefully disassembled his rods, wiped them down and stowed them in their cases. He loved the experience of fishing with them.

I think many examples of great photography from the past are timeless. There is a significant percentage however that, at least as far as I'm concerned, need to be appreciated within the context of when and how they were shot. From a purely uneducated observer's perspective, today's ease and pervasiveness of photographic imagery has "raised" the bar on what is generally considered great/interesting photography. Those with more experience in pre-digital techniques, developing, and printing may look at these works with a different set of emotional filters and the image may resonate more for them as a result.
That being said, just shooting with film does not excuse the photographer from creating crap and getting extra credit because it's film.

Should images be judged by how (or when) they were created? Does it matter? Are someone's blurry/noisy digital street shots worse than those shot with film years ago simply because the technology was available to have made the digital shots technically better, but the photographer chose not to (or failed to). Does the fact that I can take a cell phone picture and make it look 100 yrs old by applying a filter in photoshop diminish the impact of the older photo? Can we judge images by content only? Should we?

I don't care about by whom, how or when the image was created.
I was at a large photo show in DC that featured galleries from all over the US and every significant photographic artist I could think of was represented in the prints displayed. There were, for me, enlightening conclusions I came away with.
Many of the iconic images that we see and almost revere, when seen 'in the flesh' in real life, were really unimpressive. All of the images displayed had price tags starting at $3,000 and up - going to $40,000. In the last room I went into the pictures were as impressive, beautifully done and I was stunned to see that the prices were in the hundreds rather than the thousands. It turned out that these were images from a local photo cooperative and all the pictures were contemporary.
When I look at a picture, I don't care by whom, when or how it was done, I see only the picture as it is.

I often see how photographers post a picture with a rather low IQ, that has basically poor and uninteresting composition and content. You know, the kind of a shot about nothing that would be deleted without thinking twice on a digital camera. But the guy posts it and adds that this is some Kodak Superduperextamonoclourchrome 20054 XTC. Had he not mentioned it, I would have thought - poor, boring photo, why is it here. Then I see it is film and think: OK, fair enough. SuperduperKodak. Might be rare. Might be just 35 shots in the roll.

If a photog mentions that it is film, does it mean he shouts from the roof? I am sure he does not think so, but it sound like that to me. Probably there is some meaning in mentioning what film was used. To me it does not matter, what matters is the end result.

What does it all say about film photography? I do not know. Probably nothing. Probably it says that film photography is more about the process than the result these days. I very rarely see modern film images that are kicking. Probably they exist somewhere. How many pros that make a living on photography shoot film?

I couldn't agree with this post by Sashbar more. I understand that the film photographer might have more invested emotionally in their image because of the effort and process involved. If I am given food to eat, should I care that the ingredients were raised locally, gathered by hands and prepared in a specifically arduous manner - say help in the chef's bare hand over a charcoal fire?
IMO, no.
I care only for the final product.

My opinion is, as it was before, that the digital age is the Golden Age, opening the art by removing some of the artificial technical barriers that existed before.
If an artist can conceive of it, it is possible to do it.

 

[bribrius]

It sounds to me like you place to much weight on technical detail.

The breadth of vision we see in Victorian photography simply dwarfs what we see today on photo sharing sites, despite the fact that there might be ten orders of magnitude more images.

I am not familiar with that book, so possibly it is not very representative, though.

lew does anyway, reading some his posts he seems to be at this for six years or so and learning processing the last few. Kind of like the restaurant shot he was processing for whatever reasons when I kind thought the photo was only worth a jpeg snap shot to start with (and probably more valuable as a unprocessed snapshot in my mind). Replicating is a learning tool. I think he is In a learn phase himself on processing and technicals, still trying to copy previous styles with his photoshop. Half of these questions he posts I believe revolve more around him and deciding the road for his own photography than anything else . I don't blame him though I am just starting such a phase trying to learn some at least basic processing. Mostly because I need to know technicals and processing if for no other reason than to not be ignorant. Give lew a couple more years maybe he will be out of the phase knowing whatever he wanted to know and his mindset may change again. He reads this book and suddenly the thread is made. He posts his original view and uses the feedback to judge how sound the view is. Then writes in his blog. learning himself at the same time. I think this is how lew "filters". cause he/ We all go through phases and constantly learn is my guess. Next year I am going to be in the phase where everything is tilted, on the third line, selective color and out of focus. Be warned. But I will know more about processing.

Perhaps you should listen more and talk less.

I listen. I actually keep a mental tally. I have you marked down for the one way street photo for valuable insight on overuse of noise reduction and composition for a cars placement and not posting different versions of the same photo. you are one in eight posters I have retained valuable input from this past year. ysarex down for explaining tonal range. lew down for some processing insights and lighting on a portrait etc. etc. etc.

 

[photoguy99]

If an artist can conceive of it, it is possible to do it.

And that is both a blessing and a curse.

 

[bribrius]

You seem to have a strong bias towards digital processes and what you perceive as “technical perfection.” It seems to matter a great deal to you, because your question implies conflict by its presence in art. That’s all well and good, but probably makes you less than objective when judging art. A judge who is giving points for the nostalgia of a process seems inappropriate; it’s another type of bias. Photos displayed for judging are meant to be viewed as a finished work.
I hope you can appreciate that this assessment could have been made 100 years ago, word for word!

It seems that rather than talk about whether or not the digital age is the Golden Age of Photography, which is my opinion, those photogs with a heavy investment in traditional methods want to prove that I am somehow biased, incorrect or wrong. Instead of discussing the message, you end up discussing the messenger.

Film is alive and kicking.
My understanding of your post is that it is a thinly veiled dig at film. It seems to me that you feel insecure about your efforts using digital; that you feel photographers who use film are given a head start. I would argue that this is nonsense and you should concentrate on your own preferred form of the art and let others do as they please.

Do you think, or are you suggesting that those using film shout about it from the rooftops - in order to get special consideration? This may happen and I can understand that you might find this annoying, but not everyone using film behaves in this way. Just as not everyone using digital is obsessed with its rapid technical advancement. There are those in both camps who are content to get on quietly with the important goal - photography.

I never said anything about 'shouting from the rooftops, but, wherever I judge, slide (film) images are judged independent of digital images; and the slide images are, on the average, lower in technical quality. Yes, a master photographer can produce wonderful slide images but for the average photographer, it is truly hit or miss.
If you don't believe that the average B&W image from film is less impressive than the digital images, then I can't disabuse you of that fantasy. Inevitably the film and darkroom origins are obvious in looking at the print and afaic, this awareness of the process is not relevant.
I have said before - and believe - that the only importance of technical issues are when when they interfere with the viewer's appreciation of the scene. To that end, It is rare that I see a b&w image, produced in a wet darkroom, that achieves the kind of pass-through invisible technical perfection that a good digital image produces.
I look for the image as an end point not to appreciate that it was shot with 'Kodak Superduperextamonoclourchrome 20054 XTC' and printed on some specific paper.

When I lived in Colorado, my fishing partner just worshiped his bamboo fly rods and used them, regardless of the situation and the required additional care - even when the rod itself didn't work as well for what we were doing. I knew I could keep on fishing for another fifteen minutes while carefully disassembled his rods, wiped them down and stowed them in their cases. He loved the experience of fishing with them.

I think many examples of great photography from the past are timeless. There is a significant percentage however that, at least as far as I'm concerned, need to be appreciated within the context of when and how they were shot. From a purely uneducated observer's perspective, today's ease and pervasiveness of photographic imagery has "raised" the bar on what is generally considered great/interesting photography. Those with more experience in pre-digital techniques, developing, and printing may look at these works with a different set of emotional filters and the image may resonate more for them as a result.
That being said, just shooting with film does not excuse the photographer from creating crap and getting extra credit because it's film.

Should images be judged by how (or when) they were created? Does it matter? Are someone's blurry/noisy digital street shots worse than those shot with film years ago simply because the technology was available to have made the digital shots technically better, but the photographer chose not to (or failed to). Does the fact that I can take a cell phone picture and make it look 100 yrs old by applying a filter in photoshop diminish the impact of the older photo? Can we judge images by content only? Should we?

I don't care about by whom, how or when the image was created.
I was at a large photo show in DC that featured galleries from all over the US and every significant photographic artist I could think of was represented in the prints displayed. There were, for me, enlightening conclusions I came away with.
Many of the iconic images that we see and almost revere, when seen 'in the flesh' in real life, were really unimpressive. All of the images displayed had price tags starting at $3,000 and up - going to $40,000. In the last room I went into the pictures were as impressive, beautifully done and I was stunned to see that the prices were in the hundreds rather than the thousands. It turned out that these were images from a local photo cooperative and all the pictures were contemporary.
When I look at a picture, I don't care by whom, when or how it was done, I see only the picture as it is.

I often see how photographers post a picture with a rather low IQ, that has basically poor and uninteresting composition and content. You know, the kind of a shot about nothing that would be deleted without thinking twice on a digital camera. But the guy posts it and adds that this is some Kodak Superduperextamonoclourchrome 20054 XTC. Had he not mentioned it, I would have thought - poor, boring photo, why is it here. Then I see it is film and think: OK, fair enough. SuperduperKodak. Might be rare. Might be just 35 shots in the roll.

If a photog mentions that it is film, does it mean he shouts from the roof? I am sure he does not think so, but it sound like that to me. Probably there is some meaning in mentioning what film was used. To me it does not matter, what matters is the end result.

What does it all say about film photography? I do not know. Probably nothing. Probably it says that film photography is more about the process than the result these days. I very rarely see modern film images that are kicking. Probably they exist somewhere. How many pros that make a living on photography shoot film?

I couldn't agree with this post by Sashbar more. I understand that the film photographer might have more invested emotionally in their image because of the effort and process involved. If I am given food to eat, should I care that the ingredients were raised locally, gathered by hands and prepared in a specifically arduous manner - say help in the chef's bare hand over a charcoal fire?
IMO, no.
I care only for the final product.

My opinion is, as it was before, that the digital age is the Golden Age, opening the art by removing some of the artificial technical barriers that existed before.
If an artist can conceive of it, it is possible to do it.

lew, just reading this. it becomes apparent to me that you really aren't into photography at all. Just the final image is not photography, nor by your own omission you declare yourself the value of work isn't based on how you like it or technical perfections or appeal. it isn't photography you are into, it is products. Photography is a life, art, craft. It isn't a product for anyone that takes it seriously. you are out in left field here. Product thinking is for wedding photographers or simple retail. Not the entirety of what photography is. you're wrong. And the entire art world would say you are wrong. The best art is not based on appeal or how well you like it, it goes much much deeper than that.

 

[The_Traveler]

It's all true. Because of the ability to make sharper, more saturated, more technically perfect images, this has become the standard of greatness. If any deficiency in exposure or sharpness exists in the photo, these are flaws to be eliminated - and these days, this means 'shopping them out. It's pretty clear that 'technical' has a narrow definition, and 'greatness' is being defined just as narrowly.

So 'technical' doesn't - or shouldn't - just mean digital process. And yet film and digital shots are being judged by the same technical details even though the process is different and the outcome will inevitably be different. People talk about "technical perfection" and they automatically mean what a digital camera can produce. I've seen plenty of film shots that could be considered technical masterpieces. They don't look the same as a technically perfect photo from a digital camera, but they are technically perfect nonetheless..

This is a straw man that you have set up rather than reply to what I said.
I didn't say that technical perfection was limited to digital images.
I said the the film process, as it is seen here and many places, generally produced images where the process itself intruded visible into the final product.
In other words, most images made with 35 mm equivalent film products look like film and, imo, lean too much on that 'look'.

I have a good friend who shoots 4x5 and larger cameras. He takes his time and the results are as beautiful as I have ever seen, both technically and artistically. Looking at his work on the Internet doesn't do it justice. His workflow bends the situation to his needs, he scouts the situation and decides on where the light must be when he shoots and then returns days or months later when the light is correct for his shot. His does his own developing and he uses a drum scanner to digitize the image for editing and printing.
Another friend shoots classic mountain landscapes with a Nikon3x and is an exquisite printer. Her work is carried by several fine galleries in the West and it is indistinguishable from the finest large format film b&w.

Their work is beautiful and, most important to me, the process is unseen in the final product.

 

[photoguy99]

The fact that Lew does not see what's so great about the iconic images tells me immediately that he and I are looking for different things in images.

What he's looking for I shan't speculate.

 

[sleist]

lew, just reading this. it becomes apparent to me that you really aren't into photography at all. Just the final image is not photography, nor by your own omission you declare yourself the value of work isn't based on how you like it or technical perfections or appeal. it isn't photography you are into, it is products. Photography is a life, art, craft. It isn't a product for anyone that takes it seriously. you are out in left field here. Product thinking is for wedding photographers or simple retail. Not the entirety of what photography is. you're wrong. And the entire art world would say you are wrong. The best art is not based on appeal or how well you like it, it goes much much deeper than that.

The final image is everything. But what is a final image?
Photographic frames of mind:

Concept - The photographer has an idea he/she wants to express visually.

Seeing - The photographer "sees" a scene that expresses his/her vision regarding the concept.

Shooting - The photographer captures "the scene" in such a way as to provide ample opportunity to express the "mind's eye" vision.

Processing - The photographer understands that it is the mind, and not the eye, that "sees". Processing brings the mind back into the image.

Printing - The photograph becomes a physical entity. A photograph exists in the real world. Until then, it is still a concept.

Film required the last step - no photo could exist without a printed image. Digital (with the help of the internet) made the last step "seem" unnecessary.
I think a "photo" needs to exist in the real world.
Until a digital photo is printed, I don't think it can be compared to film.

Then, and only then, can it be judged on its own merits.

 

[gsgary]

The fact that Lew does not see what's so great about the iconic images tells me immediately that he and I are looking for different things in images.

What he's looking for I shan't speculate.

And i don't think he has ever seen a good wet print, for me digital prints do not compare