Is there a difference between image making and photography?

pjm1 said:
If one sees photography as a simple scientific process of capturing photons then that's one's perfectly valid perspective.

Alternatively, if one sees photography as a largely irrelevant mechanism that facilitates the telling of a story through picture then that's another's perfectly valid perspective.

Both are right, both are in conflict. Some are lucky enough to find beauty in both.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's good to see somebody who appreciates the difference. That was the point of the post
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
Wet processing and darkroom processing is dependent on the skill of the artisan, not the programmer.
Click to expand...

To be honest, both (digital & analogue) are the home of the technician. Truly gifted technicians in either are undoubtedly artists, but the reason they are gifted is because they can marry their natural creativity with attention to the process.

So many of the very best photographs could probably have been taken with more or less any half-decent kit. In many of those cases it's not the quality of the image that draws you in but the message of the image.
 
Last edited:
pjm1 said:
In many of those cases it's not the quality of the image that draws you in but the message of the image.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but my OP is about the execution and tweaking of the image, not the conception
 
Last edited:
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
Agreed, but my OP is about the execution and tweaking of the image, not the conception
Click to expand...

But I would say that misses the point of the image itself for a lot of people. The execution and tweaking are the process... very important and the thing that a subset of the photography world really enjoy. However, the conception and "outcome" are what others really enjoy. Focusing on one to the exclusion of the other probably isn't going to deliver the best image... but if you've got to do only one, sacrifice the process, IMO.
 
Stuart M said:
I've a feeling I'm going to regret this but I'll ask anyway.

So what happens when the shot you've meticulously planned in your head doesn't match what is produced by the camera. What do you do then?
Click to expand...

Then you process it.

The title of this thread is misleading. It implies that MAKING an image = post processing, and therefore those that don't use any are not MAKING an image. This is of course untrue. Someone like Gregory Crewdson MAKES an image just by the sheer control over the environment. Someone else may spend 3 days building a studio set. Others spend hours setting up lighting. This is MAKING an image equally as much, if not more than extensive post processing.

It's about appropriateness. Where the amateur often gets it wrong is why they are doing it, and of course, the amount they use.

You MAKE an image by the amount of planning, thought and reasoning behind the processes you use... no matter what they are. Images are made to communicate something to the viewer. If you think about it, what's the point of it otherwise?


Sometimes I use no processing at all, and other times I use it extensively.

It's a tool. Use it appropriately.


What most amateurs get wrong is the idea that EVERYTHING must be processed... a lot... all the time. The thought of just pressing the shutter and doing nothing more because you've spent 4 hours setting up your lighting, or waiting three months for the right natural lighting on a landscape is anathema to most amateurs. The biggest mistake they make is thinking that the camera is merely the capturing device that records something they have no control over, and all the control happen while sitting on your arse at a computer. That's all too common, and obvious in too many photographs I see these days.


Processing is a tool, just as it's always been. Ansel Adams used lots of it. Diane Arbus used none. (shrug)... it's up to you. How good you are depends on you getting that right for your work, but more importantly that your images say something. People more experienced than you at reading photographs will tell you if you've got it right or not. The mistake is the arrogance of making massively over-processed images that have no quality as a result, no value, no hope of being sold, or used, and no one else likes, just because you refuse to listen to things you don't want to hear. Experienced photographers listen to what people more experienced than themselves say about their work, and take heed, no matter if it's what they want to hear or not; Amateurs spit their dummy out and take it as a personal insult.

The other reason it's often not appropriate is because these days, it's used far too often to cover up poor photography. It's far too easy these days to be a crap photographer and get succour from places like Flickr or Facebook. Deep down most people know this I think... but it's people saying nice things... so they'll take it.
 
Last edited:
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
None of my cameras include any processing
Click to expand...

Same here - apart from my Polaroid which definitely does in camera processing!

ancient_mariner said:
I rather suspect you could no more create photosensitive emulsion & coat it on film & paper, formulate a developer, fixer and stop solution than you could write an image editing app.
Click to expand...

I could make and coat emulsion (the processing chemistry is the easy bit) but I couldn't write the software.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really?
The most used device for taking photos is the smart phone. OK you've a point with instagram filters etc, but the majority of photosd taken are uploaded to social media these days.

But, if we discard those, then yes most images taken on digital cameras will require processing, especially if you shoot raw, but then all film requires processing, so I really don't understand your point. Some film photographers either insisted on only them (or someone trusted) develop their images. They didn't just take them down to boots.

Darwinean_JohnUK said:
That's cool, you're happy to use a software program created by somebody else to adjust your '0's and '1's.
I'll use chemistry to create my original printed images
Click to expand...
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
You are a user of tools created by somebody else. You aren't tweaking the image, you are invoking software functionality that make the changes
Click to expand...

And that's different in some way? The software still replicates what people have done in darkrooms for years. Your using film, chemicals, tools created by someone else to produce your images.


As for "For me, photography is about capturing the light-illuminated subject in-camera", sorry but that just shows you to be an enthusiastic hobbiest making the same mistakes as others I read on here. You're too blinkered with the technical process to realise that actually it's all about the image. It doesn't matter how you produce it, it's all about the image.

Whether you consider that a good image is a whole other subject, but then art is subjective.
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
You are a user of tools created by somebody else. You aren't tweaking the image, you are invoking software functionality that make the changes
Click to expand...

Does it matter whether you make the film, or write the software? Did it matter whether Van Gogh mixed his own paints or not? Did it matter whether Auguste Rodin made his own chisels or not? Seriously... that was a ridiculous thing to say.

If you adjust an image using software written by someone else, it's still YOU that is in control.


Incidentally... many of us DO, or HAVE made their own emulsions. Anyone who uses collodian probably does so all the time. I used to make my own chemistry for film processing all the time. It didn't make my photographs any better as a result though.
 
Last edited:
This discussion has come down to semantics. See it, capture it, produce it. Digital or emulsion, two differing techniques. When I say see it I also refer to visualising the image pre-capture. This is just as applicable to both digital and film. No need to over-complicate it. I'm not keen on trendy baby-speak language "make a photograph / image" - you produce the final image by whatever guise that takes.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I rather suspect you could no more create photosensitive emulsion & coat it on film & paper, formulate a developer, fixer and stop solution than you could write an image editing app.
Click to expand...

I do develop my E6 and B&W films. And print my B&W images.
And I have done wet collodion processing - gotta stack of tintypes somewhere. That period of my image making was interesting but, the process too much mess and effort!

Coyon said:
Hmm Friday night post drinky belligerence perchance?
Click to expand...
probably
 
Last edited:
You didn't create the chemicals yourself, in the same way people didn't create Photoshop, you are merely using them.

This is one of the silliest threads I've seen here.
 
I haven't made my own camera yet either.
Perhaps start with a pinhole.....
I'll chop down one of my old apple trees for the wood .... no no no that would be cheating .... I should really plant a young seedling tree and nurture it for 30yrs till it's big enough ....
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
That's cool, you're happy to use a software program created by somebody else to adjust your '0's and '1's.
I'll use chemistry to create my original printed images
Click to expand...
Someone else tried, you ignored them, so I'll try again!
Your film was designed by an engineer. The chemicals were all produced for you by other people. Your 'purity' comes from manipulating the materials others have produced.
With digital it's the same but done in software. But the software doesn't 'do it for us' we choose dodging burning and cropping. Local contrast tweaks etc.

It seems the difference between the 2 is that you don't understand one of them. Which as someone else has said is perfectly fine. But it's a bit weird to 'judge' something you don't understand. Have you considered politics?
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

Darwinean_JohnUK said:
You take an image with a - more or less - p&s and use a program to refine it.
Not much photography there
Click to expand...


Darwinean_JohnUK said:
That's cool, you're happy to use a software program created by somebody else to adjust your '0's and '1's.
I'll use chemistry to create my original printed images
Click to expand...

Darwinean_JohnUK said:
You are a user of tools created by somebody else. You aren't tweaking the image, you are invoking software functionality that make the changes
Click to expand...

Darwinean_JohnUK said:
Wet processing and darkroom processing is dependent on the skill of the artisan, not the programmer.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that mastering technical and practical skills are superior to using technology to simplify and speed up picture making. Ironic in that the photography you see as a pinnacle of achievement was invented to take away the tedium of mastering drawing and painting skills. Digital photography is doing the same to chemical photography. None of these means of picture production is superior to any of the others, each is merely a means to an end.

You're nothing more than a process snob. :D
 
inkiboo said:
For someone called Darwinean John your thought processes haven't "evolved" very much.

As the poster above said, you are nothing more than a snob. As you look down on the rest of us, we will be out taking photos.
Click to expand...

Your value judgements are wrong, I don't look down on anyone.
I'm happy that you're happy doing what you want, the way you want to do it.
 
apparently a photographer is "a person who takes photographs"

and apparently photography is "the art or practice of taking and processing photographs


must be a surprise to some?
 
Last edited:
As an astro photographer, I rely heavily on post processing - That's just the way it is. The images that I am able to produce digitally would not even be possible on film. Does that mean that what I do isn't photography?
 
Don't we all have a different idea about what photography is, and don't we form that ideal based on what we want to do.
 
joxby said:
Don't we all have a different idea about what photography is, and don't we form that ideal based on what we want to do.
Click to expand...

yes, mostly, probably and hopefully

but maybe there will always be (a few or some) frustrated individuals, who are good photographers but their hopes and expectations are well above their ability and they find such a situation difficult
 
Last edited:
There is nothing pure, natural, real or authentic about taking a photograph. It is a highly selective two-dimensional slice of time taken from a moving 3D world. From the moment we pick up a camera, there are a huge number of personal decisions taken that influence the outcome - it's impossible for there not to be. Attempting to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable seems a bit pointless - certainly extremely difficult and inevitably subjective.
 
BillN_33 said:
yes, mostly, probably and hopefully

but maybe there will always be (a few or some) frustrated individuals, who are good photographers but their hopes and expectations are well above their ability and they find such a situation difficult
Click to expand...

Maybe they just see things from a different perspective.
 
No, I dunno what you've said about anything...lol

I dunno, I just think the thread is a perfectly valid thread, some of its points are inconvenient for a lot of people, some points are inconvenient for me, but that doesn't see me reaching for the derision button.
This and threads like it come up all the time, the nay sayers would rather squash them than discuss them, that tells its own story.
 
joxby said:
No, I dunno what you've said about anything...lol

I dunno, I just think the thread is a perfectly valid thread, some of its points are inconvenient for a lot of people, some points are inconvenient for me, but that doesn't see me reaching for the derision button.
This and threads like it come up all the time, the nay sayers would rather squash them than discuss them, that tells its own story.
Click to expand...

I agree with you this is a very valid thread even if only from the standpoint that a question has been asked …….. but generally what happens is usually similar to some other threads
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
None of my cameras include any processing
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out this just isn't the case and this view is IMVHO either extremely naïve to the point of having your head in the sand or deliberately misleading.

What photo manipulation is done with digital that wasn't/isn't done with film?
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
For me, photography is about capturing the light-illuminated subject in-camera. Reframing / cropping seems a valid photographic technique to strengthen the message.
Click to expand...

And for me, photography is about the final print. I've rarely (if ever) made a black and white print in a darkroom without some dodging and burning in; and I have even been known to use different paper grades and surfaces for the effect I want. All these things go way beyond the in camera capture. As does adjusting the exposure and development to control contrast.

I've never been able to fully uinderstand the obsession with the process rather than the end result, but that's my weakness. I see photography as a means to an end - the print. And I see the print as being something that should have been in mind before the shutter was pressed (or the camera focused (I do things manually :))). My aim at the point of exposure is not to create a perfect image, but the best possible starting point for that image.

Sometimes I think that there is a great divide between artists and photographers in basic attitudes; I'm not on the photography side of the chasm.
 
woof woof said:
What photo manipulation is done with digital that wasn't/isn't done with film?
Click to expand...

Is it possible to make multiple exposures with a digital camera, and if not, is it permissible to do so using an image editing program? If not permissible, are mulitple exposures in camera not permissible either?
 
My aunt has high level education in photography, including processing. All learned on film. And can do more editing in a dark room than I can in photoshop I think! Maybe not quite, but can adjust an awful lot.

Every time you get a film developed, something (human or computer) makes a decision on any adjustments needed. Unless you process at home, of course - then it's up to you what you do, just like with digital.

Reading a couple more posts, this just seems like film snobbery, "I'm better than you because I use film, and I don't use software, and my photos poop rainbows and glitter." - seriously, it's all an artform.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Is it possible to make multiple exposures with a digital camera, and if not, is it permissible to do so using an image editing program? If not permissible, are mulitple exposures in camera not permissible either?
Click to expand...

Is it possible? Yes, you can carry out multiple exposures on some digital cameras.
 
StephenM said:
And for me, photography is about the final print. I've rarely (if ever) made a black and white print in a darkroom without some dodging and burning in; and I have even been known to use different paper grades and surfaces for the effect I want. All these things go way beyond the in camera capture. As does adjusting the exposure and development to control contrast.

I've never been able to fully uinderstand the obsession with the process rather than the end result, but that's my weakness. I see photography as a means to an end - the print. And I see the print as being something that should have been in mind before the shutter was pressed (or the camera focused (I do things manually :))). My aim at the point of exposure is not to create a perfect image, but the best possible starting point for that image.

Sometimes I think that there is a great divide between artists and photographers in basic attitudes; I'm not on the photography side of the chasm.
Click to expand...

I shoot digital, but I always produce my assignments in print. There's a huge difference you can achieve in picking the different papers. There's something about the tactile pleasure of handling an image.

My next assignment idea relies on printed media for its concept.
 
Darwinean_JohnUK said:
Wet processing and darkroom processing is dependent on the skill of the artisan, not the programmer.
Click to expand...

Digital processing is dependent on the skill of the processor just as much as darkroom processing - that's why I suggested you were trolling. The programmer doesn't create the final images any more than the man who dissolved the chemicals in water that you then bought & used to rocess your film and paper created the final images. I'd agree a total novice is less likely to get complete failure with digital than with wet chemistry, but basic darkroom work is very very easy, needing no skill and just a little care and patience to follow instructions.

Your original statement was fine, but things have gone downhill since then.
 
StephenM said:
I've never been able to fully uinderstand the obsession with the process rather than the end result, but that's my weakness.
Click to expand...

It's probably not a weakness, but lack of experience. There's something very physically involving about hand printing IF you manipulate the image (if you don't then after a while it's just a bit of a drag). A bit like playing an instrumet instead of programming the music by midi, it requires you to get involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top