Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,963   Posts: 1,523,286   Online: 1104
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 72
  1. #21
    KenM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    I rather like to think of myself as a "silver halide crystalographer." That way I can stop people on the street and ask if they mind my making a silver halide crystalograph of them, and can invite people to look at my silver halide crystalographs.
    Perfect!
    Cheers!

    -klm.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    963
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    I rather like to think of myself as a "silver halide crystalographer." That way I can stop people on the street and ask if they mind my making a silver halide crystalograph of them, and can invite people to look at my silver halide crystalographs.
    Since I've gone to the semi-dark side of analogue photography by shooting lots more color negative film, I'm thinking of calling myself dye cloud ographer.

  3. #23
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,082
    Images
    189
    I once wrote a long and impassioned thread entry on the (now unfortunately deceased) Lenswork forum about the significance of process viz a viz product. I used the analogy that a violinist (for example), who spends a lifetime perfecting his art and craft, is not about to simply abandon that work to embrace an electronic emulation of that discipline to express himself musically because, at the heart of it, he is, after all, "a musician". To the violinist or any other virtuoso, the medium matters immensely. The music made on the violin has a unique character and only the most ignorant and superficial listener would not recognize what is being heard as such.

    Digital imaging...which, although wordy to be sure, accurately describes that kind of work, should be labeled as such. Photography is a different species.

    As an aside...the introduction of Lenswork's new CD companion/alternative volume seems to me to be an erosion, at least visually, of all that Lenswork has succeeded in achieving in its' print iteration. The magazine is beautiful, elegant, succinct and well worth waiting for and paying for. I will not be a subscriber to the CD version despite all its expanded offerings. When the magazine gives me a taste of the beautiful work of a featured photographer, I will want to see more of that photographer's work...but not on a computer screen... I want to see the 'real' thing which is a distinction that Brooks seems to be philosophically committed to blurring if I understand the thrust of his blogs so far.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  4. #24
    rbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    2
    I think the music analogy makes perfect sense.

    If you think of digital as the tin whistle, and traditional photography as a symphony orchestra.
    [COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]

    Ralph Barker
    Rio Rancho, NM

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Images
    4
    I think Brooks has been keeping up with APUG. There was a thread a few weeks back where Jorge had used the word pixelographer and I suggested that it was in the best interest of those wanting to preserve and grow traditional photography to start making distinctions in definitions and terminology between digital and analog.

    I decided at that time that I would no longer use "photo" in any wording having to do with digital imaging techniques. I now use pixelographer. My reasoning (I am sure somewhat flawed) is that traditional photography is primarily concerned with the capture and manipulation of light, and that the use of light regardless if it is for exposure of film or paper is used all the way through the process. With digital, the image maker is more concerned with the ability and technique to manipulate pixels with the camera and computer software to achieve a final result.

    Yes I know, a pixelographer also uses light to energize the CCD, but it is really the smallest part of the process and in some ways irrelevant due to the ability to make up for errors in exposure or totally alter the lighting of the scene with software. One way to think about it is post exposure work for the pixelographer is done with electrons, for the photographer he still must use good old photons.

    Wait... Electronographer? Writing with electrons? Is that not what the final product is from a digital file?

    Also, this is not to bash electronographers or pixelographers. I just believe we need separate terminology and definitions.
    "Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
    Robert Adams

  6. #26
    James Bleifus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Sonoma County, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    255
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by jovo

    Digital imaging...which, although wordy to be sure, accurately describes that kind of work, should be labeled as such. Photography is a different species.
    I agree. Digital imaging works for me or digital photography works. I don't have an issue with either. I can't help but wonder where the big debate was other mail vs. email. Where were the people saying that they're the same, only different methods of delivery? To be sure, the word email has changed rapidly from "electronic mail" to "E-mail" to "Email" to "email." But I never hear anyone refer to their email as mail and that's for clarity sake. We know the difference between sending a letter through the postal system and sending one over the internet. That clarity should carry over to photography and digital photography. You don't work in the darkroom if you use a computer, you work in the (symbolic) digital darkroom. Even when I was doing digital or digital hybrid I always referred to it as digital photography. I don't see the phrases as turf protection as is inferred in the blog, I see them as speaking or writing transparently.

    Cheers,

    James

  7. #27
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by James M. Bleifus
    I can't help but wonder where the big debate was other mail vs. email.
    Oh No he dih-int!
    Don't go there, James.

    E-photography vs. snail photography

    Aughh!!!
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  8. #28
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    He really has not thought this one through. He says something at the end that is always parroted by the digital imagers in one form or another and it boils down to: "it's the end image that is important". No it ain't! By that logic, a painting is a photograph, an etching is a photograph, indeed any image is a photograph.

    I find it strange that it's the traditionally based photographers that are accused of "turf guarding" and yet it's the digital workers who are the ones insisting on using an inaccurate term. What on earth is WRONG with "Digital Photography" or "Digital Imaging" as a description? They must think there's something wrong or they would not resist it so much.

    Old-time computer geeks will know what a "hacker" was originally. That battle was lost because ignorant and lazy journalists used words they didn't understand and flooded the media with an inaccurate term until it came to mean something else, twisting the original positive meaning through 180 degrees. The same will happen to "photography" which will come to mean any image created with a digital imaging machine and manipulated and printed via computer. It will be for "real" photographers to come up with a new name for themselves... He who shouts loudest, wins.


    Bob.

  9. #29
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    I don't argue with digitographers because I don't care what they have to say. Photography for me is an obsessive hobby and if I am not having fun then I am not going to do it. Shooting film and making pd prints is what I enjoy (though for the smaller formats I enjoy digital negatives more than traditional enlarged negs) and to add to the fun I am going to be doing some glossy silver prints.
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  10. #30

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    23
    And some very fine silver halide crystalographs, indeed. I won't tell anybody about your "Digisix" meter!



    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    I rather like to think of myself as a "silver halide crystalographer." That way I can stop people on the street and ask if they mind my making a silver halide crystalograph of them, and can invite people to look at my silver halide crystalographs.
    __________________________________________________

    A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

    -Nietzsche

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin