Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,695   Posts: 1,482,502   Online: 996
      
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 78

Thread: 8x10 negs

  1. #61

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,622
    According to a rather broad definition of photography, my spot meter is a camera and the resultant reading is a photograph. Or do I need to print the reading to qualify as a photograph? I don't think its being pedantic ( or fascistic) to try to restrict the use of terms so that they convey meaning. The term photography is in danger of becoming meaningless when it includes a binary stream of bits & bytes, ie digital image. Instead of pixelography ( pixels are how a digital image is displayed on a monitor), why not bitography?

  2. #62
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,301
    [quote="doughowk"] The term photography is in danger of becoming meaningless

    I think we should get on and make our images and not get bogged down in the finer points of definitions. From whichever side of the fence you stand, you are probably going to call the results photographs and I bet a penny to a pinch of snuff that any comtemporary definition of the word will be all embracing !
    I am not in the least bit interested in the digital process but if I have to use this as a tool, eg making enlarged negatives for contact printing, I shall do so. The craft will still be there as far as I am concerned, in the finished print.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    [quote="roy"]
    Quote Originally Posted by doughowk
    The term photography is in danger of becoming meaningless

    I think we should get on and make our images and not get bogged down in the finer points of definitions. From whichever side of the fence you stand, you are probably going to call the results photographs and I bet a penny to a pinch of snuff that any comtemporary definition of the word will be all embracing !
    I am not in the least bit interested in the digital process but if I have to use this as a tool, eg making enlarged negatives for contact printing, I shall do so. The craft will still be there as far as I am concerned, in the finished print.
    Very well stated. I agree. For myself photography is about making photographs and not about debating the number of angels that may reside on the heads of pins or whether angels or pins, for that matter, do in fact exist.

  4. #64
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,137
    Images
    6
    We shouldn't be so hard on digital photography. The pictures produced via this process are really a lot better than they look.

    (With apologies to Mark Twain.)

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    651
    jdef: " To suggest that one method is more real or valid than the other seems a bit arbitrary to me, and to try to dissassociate the photo part of digital photography suggests a misunderstanding of the technology. To associate a photograph too closely with reality suggests a misunderstanding of reality."

    Your entire response was very clear and well put, but an assumption you make is simply not true: that the types of energies involved are equivalent. Scientifically, photographs are related to reality in a way that digital imagery is not. See my post in this thread of November 27. Whether that matters aesthetically is another question, and we all have our own opinions about that, but energetically, the two methods of working with the energetic medium of light are not equivalent. I do not know why this is so, but I do know that it is so.

    In addition to what is in my previous posting about this: radionic photographs were made of single spots of blood, and then in special devices, from these photographs, images of selected parts of the organism from which the blood came could be "dialed in." The reult was a photograph of that part of the organism that was dialed in. These photographs of these things that I have seen do not look like ordinary photographs, but look like some sort of weird x-ray. The interesting thing is that what they show, they show with such clarity that extremely accurate medical diagnosis can be made. (These photographs were made for that purpose, when other methods failed to show the cause of the medical problem.) My understanding is that this cannot be done, and it cannot happen, when the energy is transformed into pixels. For some reason, and I don't pretend to understand how it works, the live energetic connection is lost.

    Of course, this has, perhaps, nothing to do with photographs as all of us make them, but I find it profound, and very likely, on a deep pre-conscious level, part of the appeal of photographs.I believe they affect us in an energetic way that goes way beyond mere representation, and in a way that digital imagery simply cannot.

  6. #66
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    "In digital photography, the information remains in an energetic state until committed to it's final media."

    I don't think that statement can be valid can it? The "energy" in question remaining in this "state" is not representing the same energy from the moment of the digital capture. At digital capture, that original "energy" interpreted from the light is immediately added to by interpolation, compressed, and modified (or as I like to say 'destroyed'). As soon as photoshop manipulations take place, the energy is even further destroyed into an energetic state that is false in comparison to the original information that once existed. At digital capture that energy is soon gone, turned into something else. Isn't the result a false truth?

  7. #67
    Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,517
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    15
    "Why do you feel that chemical energy is more real than electrical energy?"

    I guess personally because the chemical energy is kept in a physical state the entire life of the traditional photographic process. I can look at it, hold it, work with it physically, etc. I can relate to it as being more real. It's not sucked into a hidden realm, broken down, built back up, changed into something completely different, then spit back out on a computer display or computer print. I want a physical connection to the image I captured and I can't get it with digital. The physical connection I get feeds the emotional connection as well..

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    651
    Well, this is getting interesting. Not least for me because jdef and I are communicating civilly, for which I am grateful.

    First, although some might call that side of me "mystical," I don't see it that way. My understanding of these things is based on science, although admittedly, not mainstream science, and science that others might indeed call "mystical."

    jdef: " However, I feel that to deny that digital photography is in fact photography is a logical miscalculation, and the assertion that digital photographers are less serious or less valid than traditional photographers is elitist, devisive, and counterproductive."

    I happen to think that digital photography should be called something other than photography, but I believe that digital practioners are no less serious or valid than those of us who work in more traditional media. Many of them, in fact, are harder-working and more serious. And certainly, what they do is valid. As far as art is concerned, it does not matter how it is made, or what the ideas are that are behind it (to touch on that other concurrently running thread). Ultimately, for visual art, the only thing that matters is what the work of art looks like. For me, a major problem with digital is that the results are not as beautiful as those produced traditionally. If I thought they were, it is not entirely inconceivable that I might work digitally myself (although there still is that energetic problem).

    Other: Light energy and electrical energy, I believe are fundamentally different, qualitatively. Light has a living quality; it moves in waves. Electricity is jagged (think of lightning). On some level, and I cannot explain what that level is--way beyond me--I feel that is what makes the difference. (I feel it--maybe that would be called "mystical" by some.)

    Equating a photograph to reality: Photographs are real. Very real. They are real photographs. As jdef said: [real] "grains of silver." They are not the scene, but abstractions of that scene, object, person. Abstractions that have certain physical, and I believe, certain energetic, qualities. But they are clearly not reality. People, most of them anyway, are not as literally two-dimensional as their portraits are.

    Ultimately, none of this matters at all. At least to me. I make photographs because I get deep pleasure from the process of doing so; if I felt otherwise, I would stop immediately.

  9. #69
    noseoil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tucson
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,898
    Images
    17
    "Other: Light energy and electrical energy, I believe are fundamentally different, qualitatively. Light has a living quality; it moves in waves. Electricity is jagged (think of lightning). On some level, and I cannot explain what that level is--way beyond me--I feel that is what makes the difference"

    Some similarities between light, electricity and water. All three have similar properties which we regulate on an everyday basis. Water pressure would be how much pressure a hose is holding. This is like voltage or light intensity. The amount of water which actually flows is a function of opening the valve. This would be similar to light, as we regulate it with the aperture(exposure = light intensity x time) or electrical current as it flows through a device like a 300 watt bulb (300 watts = 120 volts x 2.5 amps).

    In this sense, we do the same thing with these seemingly different and unrelated everyday things. This is a rough relationship, it is not scientific, but will suffice for this discussion.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    651
    Well, jdef, we have come a long way, haven't we? I'd sign with a handshake, but feel a little gunshy just yet.

Page 7 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