Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,929   Posts: 1,585,263   Online: 1028
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 75
  1. #21
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,883
    I also don't like the word "traditional" because it sounds old-fashioned, or obsolete. I do not feel that there is anything old-fashioned, unmodern, quaint about what I do and I feel a silver print made in 2010 is not some sort of anachronism.
    f/22 and be there.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    boston
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24

    interesting thread...

    as I think we all have to explain to someone, at sometime, what we are doing with film. I enjoy the different approaches people take, and i even like the "digital is not photography" argument, makes me smile, at least.

    I have been telling people i am into "wet" photography. Seems to get the point across, and gives them a mental image of something more than just circuits and code. I figure if it confuses some people, these people would be just as confused at "analog" or "traditional" or anything else.

  3. #23
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by matt S View Post
    I have been telling people i am into "wet" photography. Seems to get the point across, and gives them a mental image of something more than just circuits and code.
    I often use the term "wet photography." Most people understand what it means but I only use it in conversation. I wouldn't advertise or promote my work using the term "wet." (It sounds too much like porn! ) When discussing photography with people who don't know my work I often use the term "traditional photography."

    I like digital photography but there are too many techno-jocks out there who think that all they have to do is buy the latest electronic gizmos from Walmart and that makes them a photographer. Sure, this phenomenon has existed since the dawn of traditional photography, too. There will always be people who think they only need to buy the "right equipment" in order to become a photographer but, with the advent of digital technology, there are orders of magnitude more people who act that way. I guess digital technology makes everything faster!

    I don't think that digital photography "needs" to be differentiated from traditional photography, per se. If the photographer concentrates his efforts on "image making" I don't think it matters what medium he uses. However, it can be argued that process is important in the creation of the end product. For instance, there are still traditional woodworkers out there who do not use power tools. You know... the old idea of building an entire house without using a single screw or nail.

    I don't think that modern woodworking needs to be differentiated from traditional woodworking but I think it is good to differentiate traditional woodworking from modern. I think that the same holds true for photography. It is not necessary to differentiate modern/digital photography from traditional/wet photography but it is good to differentiate traditional from modern.

    In the early days of digital technology, it was digital photography that was differentiated from the traditional. Now, it is the other way around.

    Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Each has its own place but, all things equal, neither is a replacement for the other.
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  4. #24
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,084
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    .....and I also avoid "analogue photography" because that concedes there may be such a thing as "non-analogue photography". There isn't.

    You've very eloquently expressed what I have always felt but was unable to put concisely into words.

    digital imagery is definitely NOT photography. The two may have a similar end product but they are not similar activities.


    I guess I would just call what I do 'photography' and leave it at that. (and what I do emphatically does NOT involve digital imagery in anyway). If the average joe doesn't comprehend that photography entails film and chemicals and a darkroom and silver salts....if the average joe thinks digital imagery when I say 'photography'...oh, well. That is the average joe's problem. Not mine.
    Last edited by BradS; 10-26-2010 at 12:20 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    I have called it "Classic Film Photography" on my website, and I have included an article I wrote about processing film. Maybe one should spend more time educating the end consumer instead of fighting the usual bullshit wars about digital/versus analog and emanating this aura of elitism which in turn does not accomplish anything. It's not going to sell you more prints or getting you any more attention. The one thing I know for a fact is that the people that are buying my prints are NOT photographers and therefore they don't give a rats ass about whether I get myself poisoned in chemicals or I'm playing with Photoshop until I go blind. I do it the way I do it because I enjoy it and also enjoy teaching others how it's done.

    Digital photography IS photography whether you like it or not. It's different but is still photography. Let it coexist and don't concern yourself.

    State clearly how you do things, take pride in it, don't expect to be patted on the back and try to deliver nice images to back it all up.

    Max

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wiltshire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    408
    Wow - I did not expect to get all these responses to my musing. Thanks very much to all concerned, appreciated.

    Small clarification; I had no intention of stoking the film/digital debate and am happy for both to coexist as forms of producing picures (trying to choose words carefully!). My standpoint is that if one mentions photography to someone, they tend to think of it as digitally produced as that is the default production method nowadays. Whilst I might hope that my pictures might stand up to scrutiny against a digital produced image, the fact that I have chosen to use film/print etc is, to my mind, something that is important with my work & how to reflect that choice in a succint non-pompous way.

    Probably thinking about this waaay too much, but that's me all over!

    Current thoughts:
    Wet photography is liable (in some circles) to hint at something towards the porn market;
    Film is probably more associated with movies now;
    Analogue doesn't (yet) have enough of a known resonance outside of a small circle to be understood in regard to photography;
    Hand prints could indicate prints of hands (eg baby hand prints with the poster paint!)
    Classical leads one to think of Greek statues and portraits of Homer
    Traditional might indicate pictures of old thatched cottages.....

    Please, not denigrating anyones choice of "describer" - I have come up with nothing better, just trying to explore the outer reaches of my known vocabulary!!

    Cheers for all the input
    Sim2
    *searching for a thesaurus*

  7. #27
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Sim2 View Post
    Wow - I did not expect to get all these responses to my musing. Thanks very much to all concerned, appreciated.

    Small clarification; I had no intention of stoking the film/digital debate and am happy for both to coexist as forms of producing picures (trying to choose words carefully!). My standpoint is that if one mentions photography to someone, they tend to think of it as digitally produced as that is the default production method nowadays. Whilst I might hope that my pictures might stand up to scrutiny against a digital produced image, the fact that I have chosen to use film/print etc is, to my mind, something that is important with my work & how to reflect that choice in a succint non-pompous way.

    Probably thinking about this waaay too much, but that's me all over!

    Current thoughts:
    Wet photography is liable (in some circles) to hint at something towards the porn market;
    Film is probably more associated with movies now;
    Analogue doesn't (yet) have enough of a known resonance outside of a small circle to be understood in regard to photography;
    Hand prints could indicate prints of hands (eg baby hand prints with the poster paint!)
    Classical leads one to think of Greek statues and portraits of Homer
    Traditional might indicate pictures of old thatched cottages.....

    Please, not denigrating anyones choice of "describer" - I have come up with nothing better, just trying to explore the outer reaches of my known vocabulary!!

    Cheers for all the input
    Sim2
    *searching for a thesaurus*
    Sim2,

    I think you're "current thoughts" are funny... and make perfect sense.

    Just call it "photography", explain how you do it, if you feel like it, and let the images speak for themselves. Pretty simple in my book.

    All the best,

    Max

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    53
    I like to use the word 'darkroom.' I think it's a good way of differentiating analog photography from digital photography.

  9. #29
    Ricus.stormfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bloemfontein, South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    264
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by thedancefloor View Post
    I like to use the word 'darkroom.' I think it's a good way of differentiating analog photography from digital photography.
    +1

  10. #30
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,883
    digital imagery is definitely NOT photography. The two may have a similar end product but they are not similar activities.
    I make images with chemicals that change properties when light hits them. Digital 'photographers' make images by manipulating matrices of numbers. I have nothing against that, but if you get down to fundamentals there isn't really much relation between the two.
    f/22 and be there.

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