Is there a difference between image making and photography?

[Phil V]

Bit of a leap from the comments in this thread to sitting in analogue towers and looking down on digital shooters. Not sure how you reach that interpretation.
...

I was quite convinced the OP was suggesting that he was completely responsible for his analogue output whereas software engineers were responsible for the output of digital shooters. Which is exactly that.

I love what I can achieve in PS and how I can easily and creatively achieve results I could not dream of doing in a darkroom. Yes I'm saying PS is easier than darkroom (imo). But that's a good thing. Makes it more accessible and increases the scope of our vision.

Absolutely!!

I'm barely competent in a darkroom, but not bad at all in a Lightroom.

 

[crofter]

OP seems to have gone back under his bridge.

 

[Steve Smith]

I'm barely competent in a darkroom, but not bad at all in a Lightroom.

And I'm the reverse. I can do basic stuff in Photoshop (never touched Lightroom) but I'm sure if I wanted to, I could master it - but I don't want to. Just as I'm sure that if you wanted to master the darkroom, you could - but you probably don't want to.


Steve.

 

[Steve]

And likewise, I'm not sure why you're having such difficulty understanding my comment. We have someone implying those using digital have no skill and that all the work has been done by someone other than the photographer, to me that's a pretty damn big ivory tower.

fair point... maybe should be a silver halide tower?

When I say PS is easier than darkroom its not meant as a criticism or being dismissive of digital users. If digital wasn't in some way better than film, why are there so few film users compared to digital?

 

[Steve Smith]

I also agree that digital appears easier than film (despite admitting earlier that I am incompetent at Photoshop). Digital photography and processing is much more accessible and it is much easier to experiment digitally.

Experimenting with film and paper costs money at every stage whereas digitally, there is an unlimited amount of experimenting you can do which onl;y costs you your time.

I also believe that if digital wasn't easier and more convenient than film, people wouldn't have abandoned film in their masses in favour of digital.

HOWEVER - The ease of use of one system over another has absolutely nothing to do with creativity.


Steve.

 

[PMN]

HOWEVER - The ease of use of one system over another has absolutely nothing to do with creativity.

Which is the important thing. Take two photographers, one takes an ill-thought out, badly composed and generally boring photo on medium format film while the other takes an evocative, emotional and generally beautiful image on digital. Is the film one really better purely because it's shot on film?

You'd have to be an absolute utter idiot to try argue that point.

 

[juggler]

Digital image making seems often, though not always, to be dominated by a significant amount of post processing.
For me, photography is about capturing the light-illuminated subject in-camera. Reframing / cropping seems a valid photographic technique to strengthen the message.
Others feel more comfortable than I in manipulating the light-sourced pixels.
Am I OCD about my hobby?

Even when capturing something digitally in camera, unless you shoot raw, you are making a number of processing decisions. Tone/contrast curves, colour response, noise removal, removing the effect of lens aberrations, sharpening and the like can all be altered prior to taking the shot in camera or after the event on a PC. Choosing to accept the defaults is akin to shooting on auto. Moving that processing to the PC seems to me to be a perfectly valid thing to do.

If reframing and cropping is ok then is straightening verticals and horizontals acceptable?
Where do you draw the line? Some would say that global adjustments are fine but selective ones aren't - but that seems to me to be an artificial distinction.

 

[StephenM]

Photographers in the darkroom are just as dependent on the work of others as digitographers are on the software developers. I think that this choice of terms reflects the way some of the comments have been going - I wouldn't personally make such a distinction. I have a recollection of Ansel Adams writing somewhere that he could never get a satisfactory print of a certain negative until a different printing paper came out. I have to ask though - if total control over the entire process is necessary, then does that mean that if you write your own image processing program (or happen to be a Photoshop developer) it's then OK to go OTT on digital editing?

As originally posed, the question seemed to be more a statement - I believe photography is about getting it right in camera, and no afterwork. I do wonder about the sentence "others feel more comfortable than I in manipulating the light-sourced pixels". Does this imply that it's OK to manipulate the light-sourced silver grains in the emulsion?

At base, it seems another statement that stopping half way through the creative process is somehow "purer". Because it means that the image as recorded is as close as possible to what the camera recorded, and that this is better than producing an image based on what we see - either physically or in our minds as we consider the subject.

I'm personally hybrid. I use film from choice as being better for me, but admit freely that I can make a better print by scanning than I can in the darkroom. Photoshop is much more flexible, even though I only use about half a dozen features. Those features let me go well beyond the "valid photographic techniques of reframing/cropping"; but I only do the things I've done in the darkroom for years. Just more easily. And since it's the end result that matters, I'm happy to get there with less effort. The fact that the end result is actually better is a big bonus for me.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Changing tones, contrast,reframing, cropping,straightening verticals and horizontals are also darkroom techniques I was using 25 years ago. Digital photography and digital enhancement is just another evolution of photography. Personally I'm glad we have moved on. I have no desires to return to the darkroom. I realise that film is having a bit of a renaissance at the moment, what I don't understand is why some people want to scan negatives as opposed to print them on an enlarger and watch them develop in front of you which you could control.

Some people pontificate that film is real photography but use scanners. If you want to be authentic then use and enlarger. However, Film or Digital, it does not matter which medium you use as long as you enjoy it. It is the final image that's important. If is the destination not the journey.

 

[Steve]

Photographers in the darkroom are just as dependent on the work of others as digitographers are on the software developers. I think that this choice of terms reflects the way some of the comments have been going - I wouldn't personally make such a distinction. I have a recollection of Ansel Adams writing somewhere that he could never get a satisfactory print of a certain negative until a different printing paper came out. I have to ask though - if total control over the entire process is necessary, then does that mean that if you write your own image processing program (or happen to be a Photoshop developer) it's then OK to go OTT on digital editing?

As originally posed, the question seemed to be more a statement - I believe photography is about getting it right in camera, and no afterwork. I do wonder about the sentence "others feel more comfortable than I in manipulating the light-sourced pixels". Does this imply that it's OK to manipulate the light-sourced silver grains in the emulsion?

At base, it seems another statement that stopping half way through the creative process is somehow "purer". Because it means that the image as recorded is as close as possible to what the camera recorded, and that this is better than producing an image based on what we see - either phyically or in our minds as we consider the subject.

I'm personally hybrid. I use film from choice as being better for me, but admit freely that I can make a better print by scanning than I can in the darkroom. Photoshop is much more flexible, even though I only use about half a dozen features. Those features let me go well beyond the "valid photographic techniques of reframing/cropping; but I only do the things I've done in the darkroom for years. Just more easily. As since it's the end result that matters, I'm happy to get there with less effort. The fact that the end result is actually better is a big bonus for me.

Beautifully put.

Digital has allowed me to do things that were way above my skill/talent/prop building abilities with film and that is a huge positive as a whole new world has been opened to me. For example, after seeing the Exorcist film in the mid 70s I always wanted to try making a photo of a floating possessed person. I know it COULD be done with film, but that was way over my level. With digital I have been able to create exactly what I had in mind by merging 3 photos and a bit of editing of no more than an hour. The end result isn't going to win any awards as I'm not skilled in PS. But the point is that I could finally imagine my dream vision with minimal editing skill in creating an image that I like. It may now be closer to digital art than a photo but who cares....it's a personal project to achieve a personal goal and digital has allowed me to realise it.

Having said that, I still photograph a lot on film. Just because I like using old cameras and enjoy the process, but if I want to achieve a vision such as above that is too hard on film, the digital is the better medium.

 

[XA2inmypocket]

Even though this thread is generally negative (pun intended), some very good points were made. It doesn't matter what technology or gear that you use - as said earlier - it is the end product that counts.

After all, I'm the lowest of the low. I use both, and even worse, I hybridise with a film scanner. Awful man.

 

[Byker28i]

fair point... maybe should be a silver halide tower?

When I say PS is easier than darkroom its not meant as a criticism or being dismissive of digital users. If digital wasn't in some way better than film, why are there so few film users compared to digital?

Cost - it's expensive to shoot and develop film. I mean I can sit and shoot 5-13 frames per second - I must get one good pic right? Imagine if I had to think, compose and take just one shot?

 

[Byker28i]

Which is the important thing. Take two photographers, one takes an ill-thought out, badly composed and generally boring photo on medium format film while the other takes an evocative, emotional and generally beautiful image on digital. Is the film one really better purely because it's shot on film?

You'd have to be an absolute utter idiot to try argue that point.

One takes images, one makes images...

 

[XA2inmypocket]

I enjoy hybrid photography because a) I enjoy using some beautiful film cameras, and the work flow, b) I enjoy sharing digitally online - one of those sad Flickr addicts, c) I personally prefer the b/w digital images that I get from scanned film, than I do, the digital images that I get from converting RAWs to grayscale. I guess that is the clincher for me - I enjoy the journey AND the final product. I don't care how other's do it. I still enjoy many of their images. Neither do I restrict myself to film gear - I like taking a DSLR out now and then. I feel that using both enhances my journey. I'm not interested in status or oneupmanship. I love photography!

Digital photography isn't a problem. What is a problem for many entry level (or even some experienced) photographers is awful, unnecessary, bad habits in post processing. This could also apply to hybrid photographers - not just digital photographers. That is where board members can help the beginners here, not by silly debates over who has the best light sensor.

 

[Steve Smith]

It is the final image that's important. If is the destination not the journey.

Not always true. Sometimes, I like the journey too.


Steve.

 

[Steve]

Not always true. Sometimes, I like the journey too.


Steve.

Totally agree. I imagine the journey is not important for the pros, but for an amateur hobbyist, it is a large part of the enjoyment of our hobby.

It's not just about utility.

 

[StephenM]

Not for me; I don't particularly like carrying around a large format camera and all the extras. The enjoyment for me comes from the consideration of what's around me, and how best to translate that into an image. Everything else is the drudgery that's necessary to get to the print.

 

[PMN]

Not for me; I don't particularly like carrying around a large format camera and all the extras. The enjoyment for me comes from the consideration of what's around me, and how best to translate that into an image. Everything else is the drudgery that nrcrddsry to get to the print.

It's pretty much the same for me. I know some people connect with certain cameras and that's fine, but the connection for me is between myself and whatever I'm shooting. I could shoot with an iPhone and still have exactly the same connection.

 

[big soft moose]

The browser you have used was written by software engineers too, unfortunately it failed to create coherent sentences for you?

I wonder if the OP understands that as soon as he scans his precious chemically reacted image, it becomes a series of 1 and 0s interpreted using software designed by engineers.

equally who does he think designs the film , the developing chemicals etc

 

[Steve Smith]

Not always true. Sometimes, I like the journey too.

Just to add - The reason I returned to film after a brief trial with digital was nothing to do with quality. The D100 I had with a 'mere' six million pixels was plenty for me. I just hated the computer based post processing.

So for me, it's very much about the journey, not just the final image.

The enjoyment for me comes from the consideration of what's around me, and how best to translate that into an image.

I can appreciate that too. Sometimes I will take a camera out but not even use it. I will enjoy just being out.


Steve.

 

[Phil V]

I wonder if the OP understands that as soon as he scans his precious chemically reacted image, it becomes a series of 1 and 0s interpreted using software designed by engineers.

equally who does he think designs the film , the developing chemicals etc

I don't think the OP scans anything, and the bit about the film and chemicals has already been done.

 

[joxby]

Don't we need to be motivated by the "journey" to produce anything.

It seems a bit dismissive to say how we get there doesn't matter, when our images depend on a journey of some sort to exist.

 

[NeilG40]

Bit of a leap from the comments in this thread to sitting in analogue towers and looking down on digital shooters. Not sure how you reach that interpretation.

Probably because the OP has being going into other people topics and telling them that what they're doing is "pixelography" and not photography when they've been asking photoshop questions.

 

[big soft moose]

its a little ironic that back in may the OP said (on the what irks you thread)

People who consider themselves technically competent who are actually quite clueless, lack of empathy for others efforts wherever they may be on their own artistic journey. .

inconsistent troll is inconsistent

 

[ianp5a]

I certainly did look to me like he was sneering at the digital processes. Referring to adjusting our "1s and 0s" and making a point that the software is designed by "other people". And this one was a real clincher.

And the chemistry is also an art to be harnessed. All the equivalent skill in Photoshop was done by a computer developer for you. No skill by you.

I don't think he understands what the digital world is about, or can't express himself well.

 

[big soft moose]

not to mention likening digital photography to using a point and shoot

 

[joxby]

its a little ironic that back in may the OP said (on the what irks you thread)



inconsistent troll is inconsistent

Yeah....still, he can learn from this thread how to be more consistant, if he comes back

 

[StephenM]

Don't we need to be motivated by the "journey" to produce anything.

It seems a bit dismissive to say how we get there doesn't matter, when our images depend on a journey of some sort to exist.

Surely that depends on how you define "journey". If you mean the whole of our experiences throughout life that resulted in our being what we are, seeing things the way we do, and so on, then yes we need to have made that journey. Whether that counts as motivation though, depends on how you define "motivation".

If you mean (as I think it's largely been meant in this thread) the physical process you go through to convert your idea into an image, then I don't agree.

If we're travelling to New York, we might travel first class by luxury liner and enjoy the journey more than the arrival (the end result of that journey). Just as some people derive their pleasure from photography solely from using the equipment, without regard to any physical outcome. Or the journey could be taken by the cheapest possible air route, despite the discomforts of cramped conditions and whatever else, because the only thing that matters is arriving, and we'll take the cheapest route. Or move up a class of airline ticket and opt for the arriving as being the most important thing, but a pleasant way of getting there is also important. But whichever way we travel, we all end up with the same result - a trip through customs .

 

[big soft moose]

in December last year he was telling us

I work in IT and enjoy photography as an antidote to sitting in front of a screen most of the day.
!

which probably explains why he thinks its all about the programmer

and the month before that he was looking at a sony A7 but rejected it for street photography because of the noisy shutter (odd for someone who then went on to buy a 'inconspicuous' 5x4 large format)

 

[StephenM]

in December last year he was telling us



which probably explains why he thinks its all about the programmer

Doesn't follow. For what it's worth, I have a degree in chemistry but don't think film photography is all about the chemicals; and I had a career in computer programming (low level languages, mainly in IBM Assembler on mainframes) and don't think digital photography is all about the software.

It's more that there are people who enjoy being out with a camera more than anything else, and don't want to have the trouble of editing their photographs. Let's be honest though - a lot of top class film photographers didn't make their own prints; the only difference really is without a print, you didn't have an image (slides apart). With digital, you have something to share or show without having to do anything else.

I suppose that using a darkroom can be seen as a change (and therefore as good as a rest) if your work involves computers.

 

[big soft moose]

So you've got a brain

however the number of programmers who think its all about them and not about the end user are legion.

 

[Phil V]

So you've got a brain

however the number of programmers who think its all about them and not about the end user are legion.

There's not only programmers working in IT.

And frankly, it's the point at which I call BS on the troll. There is no way he works in IT and believes that the software is doing anything creative. He's either a troll working in IT or just plain lying about working in IT.

 

[joxby]

If you mean (as I think it's largely been meant in this thread) the physical process you go through to convert your idea into an image, then I don't agree.

.

Thats what I'm talking about, but we have to remove business photography from the equation, for obvious reasons.

Suppose digital photography became unavailable, how many peeps would take up film instead ?

Course there are tons of peeps who shoot both but I'd guess that those that did not continue would leave a pretty hefty hole in the photography landscape.
Equally, should film cease to be available (which is substantially more likely), I imagine a good lot of those would knock it on the head too.

So at least in some measure, the journey is important to a lot of photographers.

 

[big soft moose]

There's not only programmers working in IT.

And frankly, it's the point at which I call BS on the troll. There is no way he works in IT and believes that the software is doing anything creative. He's either a troll working in IT or just plain lying about working in IT.

I called bs a lot earlier than that - about the point at which he said that film used photons of light but digital used 1s and 0s ( in my experience both forms of photography use photons of light , its just that in one they are falling on grains of silver halide and the other on an electrophoto sensitive sensor )

 

[Phil V]

I called bs a lot earlier than that - about the point at which he said that film used photons of light but digital used 1s and 0s ( in my experience both forms of photography use photons of light , its just that in one they are falling on grains of silver halide and the other on an electrophoto sensitive sensor )

Missed that one Pete.
Although I think I've seen others showing the BS card too.

 

[simon ess]

I love how it's turned into a very interesting discussion - particularly between the Steves.

 

[StephenM]

Thats what I'm talking about, but we have to remove business photography from the equation, for obvious reasons.

Suppose digital photography became unavailable, how many peeps would take up film instead ?

Course there are tons of peeps who shoot both but I'd guess that those that did not continue would leave a pretty hefty hole in the photography landscape.
Equally, should film cease to be available (which is substantially more likely), I imagine a good lot of those would knock it on the head too.

So at least in some measure, the journey is important to a lot of photographers.

That's an interesting question, and one I'm sorely tempted to come back on. On the other hand, I'm left with the feeling that this thread has run its course, particularly as the OP seems to have left us, and it's time for me to move on.

 

[ianp5a]

Come back OP, and entertain us some more.

Many here will not know that 1s and 0s are involved in digital photography. And most of us here have no way of accessing those terrible 1s and 0s that apparently prevent us from using skill and creativity with software.

 

[munch]

Having read through the thread my conclusion is who cares. Call it what you like

 

[big soft moose]

Come back OP, and entertain us some more.

Many here will not know that 1s and 0s are involved in digital photography. And most of us here have no way of accessing those terrible 1s and 0s that apparently prevent us from using skill and creativity with software.

and of course many here will be ignorant of the fact that only film using photons of real light