What is photography about...? Have your say.

[deanimator]

Share with us what you think it is about...what makes it perhaps unique...why you do it

I ran across this little article today...maybe it can start the ball rolling
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zebandrews/2762343734/

 

[Overread]

interesting viewpoint in that article. I must say I also prefer the physical world to the digital - I buy CDs of music - I buy DVDs - I buy paper books not digital ones (though ironically cheap inks used today mean a digital copy might outlast most modern books!).

When it comes to photography I have slightly different viewpoint in that I shoot digital and view traditional as an area I would like to play with, but not shoot full time. I think this is partly as I do photography not just for the print afterwards, but also for the act of shooting itself. I have grown up in the digital age so computers and digital data are commonplace for me, whilst chemicals and such I am less familiar and confidant with.
Saying that I do most certainly want to print my photos (once they are good enough ) and have hard copies of them in the real world - that can hang on a wall say

 

[JerryPH]

I think I understand his viewpoint, but I feel he is displaying a small form of insecurity or fear.

Nothing lasts forever. Yes, certain media will let it last a hundred or so years, but they do degrade slowly over time. I doubt the original film negatives will give you 50 years without becoming so brittle that they are destroyed if handled after such a long time as well. Tangible? Sure, but not for long. Then where are you? In the digital world, we also have a time limitation (the life of the media used), however, in the digital world, there are no generational losses if reproduced or copied. The potential of extending life is easily there without loss. This is simply not an option in the world of tangible film or glass... unless you come into "our world" (lol).

Though I am not a shooter of a lot of film, I *love* film. I've seen some things on film that even the most advanced and expensive cameras on the planet today cannot come close to... but, anyone who feels that this initial tangibility is anything more than a temporary fix compared to the intangible limitless life of digital... I kinda think that they are walking around with a little set of blinders.

In the digital world, I can *choose* to print things out and have that tangibility, anytime... but in the film world, anyone that wants the advantages of digital (ie: reproduction with ZERO generational losses), will have to digitize to be able to further extend the life of that picture without further degradation.

My personal stand is "live and let live" when it comes to film vs digital. Though film is slowly fading away, at this point in time, it still has a very viable place in this hobby/profession/industry.

 

[dEARlEADER]

i dunno.... guess i'm shallow... too me... a medium is just a medium... it's the image that has value to me...

the author mentions film as some kinda natural repository of light ala Jim Croce Time in Bottle hippy sentiment...IMO really it's just light causing chemicals to react... no different that 1's or 0's...

just IMO

btw... are digital vs film threads banned on this forum?

 

[Overread]

although the intial article is leaning towards a digital vs traditional slant I don't see this as a direct comparions thread - moreso I think its just open to indeviduals and some will shoot and talk about traditional and others about digital

 

[BTilson]

I view it all as different means to get to the (mostly) same end. Because in the end, isn't a stunning photograph what we're all after? I think one of the biggest pulls to digital for me is the convenience, cheapness and instant gratification. It's definitely very nice to be able to take a thousand shots without ever having to worry about film, development costs or anything of that nature.

However, all that said, I think that is also a huge part of the appeal of shooting film. I am very interested in branching into that with my photography, but my finances simply don't allow it right now. It seems to me that film would almost FORCE you to take more time with each shot, put more thought into it, and to have a more visceral experience with it all the way around. Especially if you have a darkroom and do your own development.

I find the potential of film very fascinating, especially the large format stuff. My numbers are probably off, but I've heard that you can take a 5x7 negative, get it scanned on one of those big fancy scanners, and wind up with a digital picture the equivalent of hundreds and hundreds of megapixels.

I am rambling though, and straying somewhat from the original topic. To me, photography, at least the hobby, is about the satisfaction of capturing a specific moment in time, the empowering sense of pride that swells in you the first time you flip the dials on your camera instinctively, instead of having to look at them and think about what they do. It's about sharing and giving and patience and silence and myriad other fascinating things. Alas, I am nowhere near the writer I would need to be to be able to convey what photography is about.

 

[dEARlEADER]

although the intial article is leaning towards a digital vs traditional slant I don't see this as a direct comparions thread - moreso I think its just open to indeviduals and some will shoot and talk about traditional and others about digital

lol....this is political speak to avoid calling a spade a spade.... this is clearly a film vs digi thread...

 

[craig]

I like the title of your thread, so I think I will answer that. I started to read the link and quickly got bored.

Personally photography is about capturing what I perceive to be interesting, beautiful and about a million other adjectives. Photography is about continually learning. It is about making the most creative and high quality images for myself and my clients. It is about making sure the whole world sees my work in physical and digital form.

Photography is a unique art form because it is a marriage of technology/alchemy and art.

I do it because I love it and I'm really good at it.

Love & Bass

 

[GTHill]

The photos that I most enjoy taking and viewing are ones that invoke emotion. I want someone to look at my photos and feel something.

Gene

I don't care about digital vs. film. I just know how to use digital better so that is what I chose.

 

[mrcrassic]

I can't read the article because Flickr is blocked at my job.

Answering the title, I think photography is about savoring the moment. I used to draw often when I was younger, and was considering art school when I was younger. I loved drawing still-lives and capturing all of their shadows and details.

When I stopped drawing and started studying engineering, I slowly slid into digital photography. I started with el cheapo HP Photosmart 1.2 MP camera (SUPER HUGE). I shot a few impressive shots with that camera. Upgraded to the Minolta less cheapo digicam that I broke the lens to. Then, when money was strong, I made the plunge and bought a Nikon Coolpix, and promptly exchanged it for a Canon Powershot. Tooled around with the manual settings, got my Canon 300D and now shoot with a 20D.

Though the picture quality of each camera differed between each other, there was one thing that stood the same: the best shots were always the best moments.

Regardless of the medium the photo is captured, it's all about the moment.

 

[Photonic Harmony]

I got something different from the linked article. It told me more about the person writing it, than it did anything else. I think the person writing the article subscribed to a nostalgic and romantic view of photography. I appreciate this view myself and I sometimes find myself thinking the same things, with that known, I didn't understand the article to be an actual public endorsement of "film".

I don't believe the form on which we record an image has any bearing whatsoever, outside of the nostalic and romantic view of photography of course. Everything will decay in the end, it will always be down to an individual to prolong the life of any image - be it film, digital or something futuristic, I guess this would go to explain why there are so many photographic repair and retouch services around today.

I believe the actual image itself to be everything. When I stand and appreciate an image I appreciate it for what it is, not how it came to be.

A 100 year old image, fantastic!

 

[patrickt]

Film vs. digital doesn't interest me.
I recently had some photos hanging in a show. The gallery owner referred to me as an artist and I corrected him and said I was a photographer.

What's the difference? His previous show featured an artist. He had a two page statement of who he was and why he was important.

For me, I'm not important. Who I am is irrelevant. My photos are what matter to me.

What I really enjoy is taking photos. I do the editing out of necessity. And, I'm certainly pleased if others enjoy the photos I enjoyed taking.

 

[monkeykoder]

I think I understand his viewpoint, but I feel he is displaying a small form of insecurity or fear.

Nothing lasts forever. Yes, certain media will let it last a hundred or so years, but they do degrade slowly over time. I doubt the original film negatives will give you 50 years without becoming so brittle that they are destroyed if handled after such a long time as well. Tangible? Sure, but not for long. Then where are you? In the digital world, we also have a time limitation (the life of the media used), however, in the digital world, there are no generational losses if reproduced or copied. The potential of extending life is easily there without loss. This is simply not an option in the world of tangible film or glass... unless you come into "our world" (lol).

Though I am not a shooter of a lot of film, I *love* film. I've seen some things on film that even the most advanced and expensive cameras on the planet today cannot come close to... but, anyone who feels that this initial tangibility is anything more than a temporary fix compared to the intangible limitless life of digital... I kinda think that they are walking around with a little set of blinders.

In the digital world, I can *choose* to print things out and have that tangibility, anytime... but in the film world, anyone that wants the advantages of digital (ie: reproduction with ZERO generational losses), will have to digitize to be able to further extend the life of that picture without further degradation.

I'll have to say I've had far too many hard drives fail on me to believe in the limitlessness of digital. Hard drives start failing a little at a time and you won't know until it has corrupted a file beyond saving. Not to say that it can't be kept just as long you just have to be really careful about it. While I've never seen a 50 year old negative (well I have seen some tintypes which are a weird mixture of negative and positive (and they were still in perfect shape 100 years later.)) I have played with some 30 year old slides that don't seem to be much worse for wear.

 

[Battou]

...

Somehow I get the feeling I don't want to read the article as it seems to have derailed the thread so.....


I'll just answer the question.



Photography is all about nothing and yet everything. It's all about the user in question. Me personally, the bulk of my work is what I would call technical display. This is what it is and here is what it looks like. I show things to people.

Examples

• Mallard ducks
• a Turkey Vulture
• a Cedar Waxwing
• a Scion tC
• a Harley Davidson
• a Luna Moth
• a Lilly
• a couple cameras

That is not to say I don't expariment with other forms be they more or less artistic. But for me it's the act of attempting to show something particular to someone who may not have seen it.

 

[genital_apparatus]

I'm new to photography but I'm not new to art. I studied music for 12 years. In the beginning it was always about learning how to do it right; play the right notes, play the right dynamics. Then one day things change, and you're not aiming to play it right, you're aiming to play what you think is beautiful, your own version of a piece of music that's been played a thousand times before. That's what makes a musician an artist, the fact that no matter how many times he (or she) plays the same piece of music, it will always be his/her own work of art, different in tone and colour than anyone else's.

Photography is just the same. We may all be looking at a cloud. Some of us might see a horse, others might see a train. Yet others might see Homer Simpson riding a donkey on PCP. Photography is just our way of preserving and reproducing what we see, so that others can see it too.

Okay, enough talk from the n00b. :blushing: