Digital seems to have killed the photographer in me....

[Steve Smith]

Photography is ultimately about results, not processes.

If that were true I would have given up years ago!

once you've mastered the relatively simple technique of bath processing

Is that sitting in the bath with a laptop?


Steve.

[Lawrence Sheperd]

"#1-- no it's my professional obit whine fest.

#2-- so why do musicians still us analog means?

#3-- our craft/profession already magical has underwent changes that could not have been believed in 1986 (I did a paper on digital photography in 1986) - vpwphoto"

To #2: unfortunately, the music/audio industry is almost an exact analog (pardon the pun) to the photographic industry. You would be absolutely amazed at the number of "analog" instruments one hears on recordings that are actually digital samplings of "real" instruments. In a live performance though, not quite so easily pulled off. This thread could be dropped into the forum at mixonline.com and only a very few words would need to be changed. Change "film" to "tape (analog, not digital); "darkroom" to "studio"...

[Saganich]

I disagree. A photograph may be about the results, but photography as a practice is very much about the process (whether it be simple or complicated) of acheiving a desired result. Whether the photographer obssesses, or even cares, about the processes is relative.

I think the OP articulated an understandable difference between the two fields that many can relate to.

Yes, when I talk with young working photojournalists in my neighborhood they are quick to claim that photography is about the results and not the process. I point out that their digital results, which are published in Fortune, New Yorker, etc., have just as much processing as films used to have. The amount of process hasn't decreased it has only shifted from chemical to electrical, and in the extreme cases like Hipstermatic it occurs behind the scenes. Friends who have made the conversion to digital probably process their images even more so to get "the look" that is necessary for publication these days. So processing is by no means a thing of the past but more relevant then ever.

[Steve Smith]

To #2: unfortunately, the music/audio industry is almost an exact analog (pardon the pun) to the photographic industry. You would be absolutely amazed at the number of "analog" instruments one hears on recordings that are actually digital samplings of "real" instruments. In a live performance though, not quite so easily pulled off. This thread could be dropped into the forum at mixonline.com and only a very few words would need to be changed. Change "film" to "tape (analog, not digital); "darkroom" to "studio"...

There's also a valve (tube) vs. semiconductor debate with music recording (and playing). See my valve audio link below.


Steve.

[bwrules]

If that were true I would have given up years ago!

My point is one should concentrate on good results - interesting pictures first and foremost. Although important, they're just means for improving what should already be interesting shots. You can't put processes in an album.

[Saganich]

"#1-- no it's my professional obit whine fest.

#2-- so why do musicians still us analog means?

#3-- our craft/profession already magical has underwent changes that could not have been believed in 1986 (I did a paper on digital photography in 1986) - vpwphoto"

To #2: unfortunately, the music/audio industry is almost an exact analog (pardon the pun) to the photographic industry. You would be absolutely amazed at the number of "analog" instruments one hears on recordings that are actually digital samplings of "real" instruments. In a live performance though, not quite so easily pulled off. This thread could be dropped into the forum at mixonline.com and only a very few words would need to be changed. Change "film" to "tape (analog, not digital); "darkroom" to "studio"...

Yes, I experienced that change first hand. The first recordings we made were on an AMPEX 4track in Dunkirk, NY in 1988. In 1989 we recorded in an all digital studio. These were not professional set-ups either, it was a matter of having $$$ for the latest equipment. The guy with the 4 track studio quit by 1990 and the guy with the digital studio, Greg Snow, who later paired up with Dave Fridmann and is now known as Tarbox Studio in Cassadega.