Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoJim 
When something ceases to be reality, it's no longer a photograph. It is an image.
|
Nowhere to be on this Friday night, so here goes.
Jim, this is not a rant against you personally, I have just heard this analogy quite often and it makes no sense to me. I'm certainly not a digital guy, but....
Semantics. A digital photograph vs. a analog photograph. A photograph is "of" an image. They're both photographs of images on different mediums. To me, simply, photography is "capturing" a moment in time with light, it's the light that provides us with the end result; without light what do you have? My guess is a huge problem be it with film or be it with pixels. Both mediums are satisfied when light strikes the film plane or the digital "thingy".
On this question of reality: Literal representations, how boring!
Have you (this a collective "you", to mean anybody) ever used a dark red filter to create that stark contrast between a blue sky and white clouds? How real is that? Have you ever manipulated the contrast in your black and white photographs to enhance your original visualization, to give it that expression you are looking for? How real are the tones in the final print versus how they looked in your mind's eye versus how they appeared in the viewfinder or GG? What manipulations have been provided to the subject(s) that are obviously not true to the "image" values? These manipulations are done to rocks, trees, cars, buildings, etc..., etc...
I would argue that we see these subjects as rocks, trees, etc.....but, that is probably where the reality ends. Where is the expression that we all try to give to our prints, if we do not depart from reality at some point? In this community, I can think of several photographs that come to mind to me as being very expressive, optically true, but tonally, probably definite departures from reality consistent with their own visualization. Bill Schwab's image of the waterfall comes to my mind first, that was simply awesome to look at on my monitor; I can only imagine an actual print!
(I know it's a stupid rock and tree analogy, but...
)
I think for most analog folks, we want there to be no question in other's minds that..........that rock really was next to that tree that was next to the waterfall, etc...However, many digital folks are into "creating" such an image (I can say this because I know some who just love that aspect of the digital medium) when, perhaps, these things were not all present together at the same time when the image was made. I know, this can be done under the enlarger too, but perhaps more easily perceived, IDK. Anyway, it doesn't interest me in the least just because it can be done with a silver image too. Not my brand of photography.
Chuck