The Capture vs The Processing

[RedRobin]

The moment we start intellectualising and seeking the 'meaning' of art is the moment when all the art of someone's creation is lost.

Every single one of us has their own individual interpretation of what we see and all that matters is whether we like it or not.... Simples.

 

[StephenM]

Every single one of us has their own individual interpretation of what we see and all that matters is whether we like it or not.... Simples.

In the words of the questionaire - strongly disagree. It's a half truth told as a whole truth (the first part I agree with, the second makes me scream inwardly in frustration).

But this thread has now reached the point (as does every thread where the "A" word is used) where I'm throwing in my hand and quitting. I can tell from previous experience that there's no point in my bothering any more.

 

[jerry12953]

If I want, I can experience my local road works as performance art.

That's a great example..........

 

[Phil V]

The moment we start intellectualising and seeking the 'meaning' of art is the moment when all the art of someone's creation is lost.

Every single one of us has their own individual interpretation of what we see and all that matters is whether we like it or not.... Simples.

Surely the opposite is true?
Art only exists because it’s intellectualised. And whether or not I personally ‘like’ something has no bearing on its merit.
Being ‘liked’ is surely the lowest common denominator?

 

[woof woof]

Surely the opposite is true?
Art only exists because it’s intellectualised. And whether or not I personally ‘like’ something has no bearing on its merit.
Being ‘liked’ is surely the lowest common denominator?

If you're making a living at it your art being "liked" by at least two individuals at least creates the opportunity for a bidding war and a better income Being a starving artist is no doubt very street but being a rich one seems much more appealing

 

[dave.hallett]

Why should that worry anyone? If it was never shared then the wider world would never know it existed in the first place. There are many artists/writers who have been 'discovered' after their deaths. Some have demanded their work be destroyed when they died and their wishes ignored, others just hoarded their work for it to be found accidentally (eg Vivian Maier). No doubt there have been many we never hear about because they have destroyed their work themselves.

The pecualiar thing about making art is that, I think for most artists, it is the process of making the art which is important. It's about exploring and learning. My favourite quote relates to this and comes from The Heart of Darkness: "I don't like work - no man does - but I like what is in the work - the chance to find yourself. Your own reality - for yourself, not for others - what no other man can ever know. They can only see the mere show, and never can tell what it really means."

That sums up what art and photography are really about for me.

I wouldn't disagree. Although there are plenty of authors who say they love finishing a book but hate writing it . But I still hold to my original point. I have no issue with someone who isn't ready to share their work yet. Or who only wants it public after they have gone. Someone who wants to work obsessively on something their whole life, never share it and then have it all destroyed so that nobody will ever see it? It may be art, but it's a bit bonkers.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I can no longer define art. And I rather doubt that much photography is intended to be art.

For me, if I would not wish to own someting if if had the space and wherewithal to do so, it probably is not art, or may be I am incapable of understanding it.
Most art seems to be a form of interesting decoration. And almost all is subject to fashion for its appreciation.

 

[GTG]

The art world is for the most part lunacy anyway.

This whatever it is sold for $46,500,000, or 46.5 million.

If I made that exact "art" first it would not sell for a £10 because I am not an "artist" therefore it is not "art" if I made it. It would be tat.

 

[Ed Sutton]

It may be art, but it's a bit bonkers.

You say that as if there's something wrong with being bonkers!

 

[jamesev]

You say that as if there's something wrong with being bonkers!

Same could be said of Rhein II [1999]. The a print of the photograph was auctioned in 2011 for $4.3 million.

As for PP its one of the classic photo debates along side RAW v JPEG, Canon v Nikon etc ad nauseam.

Some think in camera is true photography and some think PP is just part of the process.

 

[Phil V]

If you're making a living at it your art being "liked" by at least two individuals at least creates the opportunity for a bidding war and a better income Being a starving artist is no doubt very street but being a rich one seems much more appealing

Whilst I agree about commercial value, it has no relationship to art per-se

 

[droj]

But I think there is in the end something a bit suspect about an artist who completely refuses to share their work. Wouldn't that worry you a bit?

Yes, that would indicate a dysfunctional personality (in the range from mere lack of confidence to something more crucial). But it needn't mean that the art was no good.

I wonder if they left the world poorer, rather than richer in the end.

Assuming that you refer to cubism - richer!

Well I may be odd, but I think the art world is richer post Picasso and punk definitely improved popular music.

You're hardly odd on that basis Phil (I'm leaving out any other options that I don't know about!). Exploration, movement and expression is vital to culture, or it would fossilise.

all integrated together not in adversity

I'm half-way there Robin, but I could do with a phrase-book ...

Exactly why I went back to film. I hated sitting at a computer doing post processing.

So you don't digitise your negs?

I think for most artists, it is the process of making the art which is important.

Exactly, exactly, exactly! It could not be otherwise.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

The art world is for the most part lunacy anyway.

This whatever it is sold for $46,500,000, or 46.5 million.

If I made that exact "art" first it would not sell for a £10 because I am not an "artist" therefore it is not "art" if I made it. It would be tat.

Ahh, but technically that picture is brilliant. Cheap at 46 mill I'd say. What I see is modern Monet. But then what do I know? Others will just see hideous HDR.

 

[RedRobin]

Surely the opposite is true?
Art only exists because it’s intellectualised. And whether or not I personally ‘like’ something has no bearing on its merit.
Being ‘liked’ is surely the lowest common denominator?

....Judging art by a set of preconceived 'rules' is what has no bearing on its merit (in my opinion). Merit is judged by the viewer/viewers who then express if they enjoy looking at it, in other words if they like it or not.

Someone who has to rely solely on analysing and intellectualising about a piece of art doesn't understand the abstract/emotional effect of a piece on its audience.

It's the same with music which afterall is just another artform - You enjoy it with your heart and emotions and not with your brain intellectualising about it. Intellectualising about art promotes snobbery about art. You simply don't need to intellectualise about why you like or love something, or indeed someone. Who intellectualises about why they love their partner? You don't need to. On the other hand, Wicked Willie might want to influence you.

When it comes to art (and lovers) follow your heart and not your brain and you won't drive yourself mad. Ignore what/who doesn't appeal to you.

Life is short and all this is equivalent to one grain of sand.

 

[RedRobin]

Whether we like it or not, the art market has created an environment in which art can be heavy duty financial currency.

Photographic prints are not far behind.

 

[RedRobin]

The art world is for the most part lunacy anyway.

This whatever it is sold for $46,500,000, or 46.5 million.

If I made that exact "art" first it would not sell for a £10 because I am not an "artist" therefore it is not "art" if I made it. It would be tat.

....It's all down to whether it has the right label or not. The signature of an established artist is the label or brand giving it value in financial markets.

 

[droj]

I wouldn't ignore the intellectual dimension - it's an important component, if not the one that's in the lead. Monetary value has nothing to do with anything except the market, and to some extent who might have access to the work.

However art doesn't become art through either being 'liked' (that's a superficial response), or by being 'held to be' art - it is (or is not) art by what it does (or fails to do). Some art is deeper than other art - there's a spectrum. And the boundaries between art and craft, and between art and non-art, are very diffuse, there's no hard line, but some things fall clearly to one side or the other. The decider in the end may be intuitive.

 

[Phil V]

....Judging art by a set of preconceived 'rules' is what has no bearing on its merit (in my opinion). Merit is judged by the viewer/viewers who then express if they enjoy looking at it, in other words if they like it or not.

Someone who has to rely solely on analysing and intellectualising about a piece of art doesn't understand the abstract/emotional effect of a piece on its audience.

It's the same with music which afterall is just another artform - You enjoy it with your heart and emotions and not with your brain intellectualising about it. Intellectualising about art promotes snobbery about art. You simply don't need to intellectualise about why you like or love something, or indeed someone. Who intellectualises about why they love their partner? You don't need to. On the other hand, Wicked Willie might want to influence you.

When it comes to art (and lovers) follow your heart and not your brain and you won't drive yourself mad. Ignore what/who doesn't appeal to you.

Life is short and all this is equivalent to one grain of sand.

I never said anything about judging by a set of ‘rules’.
Almost the opposite is true.
I can appreciate many forms of art, but art that I like or that personally moves me is a tiny subset of that.

Then there’s lots of photographs which I would never see as ‘art’ that I like a great deal.

Ergo whether I like something or not is subjective, but whether or not something is ‘art’ is much closer to being objective.

 

[Ed Sutton]

....Judging art by a set of preconceived 'rules' is what has no bearing on its merit (in my opinion). Merit is judged by the viewer/viewers who then express if they enjoy looking at it, in other words if they like it or not.

Someone who has to rely solely on analysing and intellectualising about a piece of art doesn't understand the abstract/emotional effect of a piece on its audience.

It's the same with music which afterall is just another artform - You enjoy it with your heart and emotions and not with your brain intellectualising about it. Intellectualising about art promotes snobbery about art. You simply don't need to intellectualise about why you like or love something, or indeed someone. Who intellectualises about why they love their partner? You don't need to. On the other hand, Wicked Willie might want to influence you.

When it comes to art (and lovers) follow your heart and not your brain and you won't drive yourself mad. Ignore what/who doesn't appeal to you.

Life is short and all this is equivalent to one grain of sand.

Art in all its forms can be enjoyed, understood and appreciated in a variety of ways. None of which have to exclude the others. Some people get a lot out of intellectualising about art. This doesn't mean they don't respond to it on an emotional level. Taking either approach to an extreme can lead to snobbery, and arty waffle!

 

[HoppyUK]

Definitions of art tend to be personal, and variable, but my favourites are quite simple:

The art has to 'transcend' itself and provoke an emotional response. If a painting remains just paint on canvas, no matter how skillfully applied, then it's not art. Same applies to a photograph - it has to say something, though it doesn't have to be anything too deep or earth shattering.

Art is a two-way street, a double-headed coin, a connection between the artist and the viewer. If the art fails to move the viewer, then for that person at least, it has failed. Sometimes a bit of knowledge and understanding is needed from the viewer to 'get it' (eg Van Gogh's chair). There's a lot of truth in the old cliche 'art is in the eye of the beholder' IMHO

 

[droj]

The art has to 'transcend' itself and provoke an emotional response

Generally yes. But it can be emotional, or intellectual, or spiritual, or some combination - the essential is some form of recognition, hopefully with a realisation of what that recognition consists of.

Sometimes a bit of knowledge and understanding is needed from the viewer to 'get it'

Naturally we all bring cultural baggage and personal prejudices along to how we apprehend things ...

 

[HoppyUK]

Generally yes. But it can be emotional, or intellectual, or spiritual, or some combination - the essential is some form of recognition, hopefully with a realisation of what that recognition consists of.

Naturally we all bring cultural baggage and personal prejudices along to how we apprehend things ...

I guess the point is, some art works for me, and some doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't art to someone else, possibly great art. Both views are valid.

Eg Van Gogh's chair just looks rubbish to me, and I've spent some time staring at the original. I wonder if he hadn't noticed that his portrait sitter had upped and left. On the other hand, one of his famous self-portraits, clearly depicting a troubled soul, is just brilliant. And a bit scary.

 

[Steve Smith]

So you don't digitise your negs?

Print with an enlarger. I do scan sometimes to share on social media, but that's not the intent.

Do you ever post your film pictures online?

See above.


Steve.

 

[riddell]

Taking this thread into a discussion on art isn't so useful, because art is so subjective, and its also going off topic because that art can still be created in camera and should be, if it could as you'll end up with better results and / or get there quicker.

A more apt analogy is to simply paint a wall in your house, people may argue or agree with you about your choice of colour, and its subjective as to what people like. They can compare and discuss it based on the furniture in the room.

But if you haven't got it right in the first place, haven't prepped your wall correctly, haven't followed special instructions on the tin, or used a old brush with the bristles coming off, its simply never going to look as good, as if you got it right in the first place. Maybe you could sand, fill, smooth and repaint. But that's just taken you longer and cost you more. Should have got it right in the first place. ;-)

 

[Ed Sutton]

A more apt analogy is to simply paint a wall in your house, people may argue or agree with you about your choice of colour, and its subjective as to what people like. They can compare and discuss it based on the furniture in the room.

But if you haven't got it right in the first place, haven't prepped your wall correctly, haven't followed special instructions on the tin, or used a old brush with the bristles coming off, its simply never going to look as good, as if you got it right in the first place. Maybe you could sand, fill, smooth and repaint. But that's just taken you longer and cost you more. Should have got it right in the first place. ;-)

That presupposes that you want your wall to be painted in a technically perfectly manner. I'd rather have a colour I like painted 'badly' than a 'well painted' in a colour I hate.

 

[riddell]

That presupposes that you want your wall to be painted in a technically perfectly manner. I'd rather have a colour I like painted 'badly' than a 'well painted' in a colour I hate.

But why would you paint your own wall in a colour you hate? You are choosing the colour, just as you choose the time, place, subject, setup to take a photo.
and if you are taking the trouble to paint your wall in your chosen colour, then why would you not take the time to prep the surfaces? After all you'll be looking at that wall for years to come.

and if you are a wall painter by profession, you'll paint whatever colours people want, your taste doesn't matter, but paying customers will not appreciate a badly painted wall, and recommendations will come because you've painted that wall nicely.

Even if your job is an interior designer and its up to you to choose the paint colour, and you choose a colour the customer loves, but when on closer inspection they see that its badly painted, they'll be complaining at someone.

 

[Ed Sutton]

But why would you paint your own wall in a colour you hate? You are choosing the colour, just as you choose the time, place, subject, setup to take a photo.
and if you are taking the trouble to paint your wall in your chosen colour, then why would you not take the time to prep the surfaces? After all you'll be looking at that wall for years to come.

and if you are a wall painter by profession, you'll paint whatever colours people want, your taste doesn't matter, but paying customers will not appreciate a badly painted wall, and recommendations will come because you've painted that wall nicely.

Even if your job is an interior designer and its up to you to choose the paint colour, and you choose a colour the customer loves, but when on closer inspection they see that its badly painted, they'll be complaining at someone.

That really has gone off then subject.

 

[jamesev]

That really has gone off then subject.

Most do!

 

[Fleury]

I've read through most of this thread and it's been an interesting discussion. Many points I agree with.
I have many opinions on this subject but I'll just try and keep my views short, sweet and easy to read.

Digital photography is a 2 step process. (Capture and Process)
Film photography is a 1 step process. (Capture. If you did darkroom work, it becomes one and a bit. Darkroom is incomparable to what you can do with digital processing)

With both mediums you look at a scene and determine what the end result will be.
Difference between the two mediums is with film you only have capture as the tool. Digital you have capture and process.
Digital you can evaluate what camera needs to do and what computer needs to do. A good photographer will do this before pressing the shutter.
Film you only have the camera to work with. You are more limited. A scene that may work with digital simply won't work with film. You may need to come up with an alternative shot that can be handled by the camera alone.

With digital we can do anything. You can process the living daylights out of a pic or you can do nothing but a few minor basic adjustments.
What you do depends on your own personal preference or requirement.
You may wish to keep things traditional and keep your photography as a true representation of "the capture of light."
On the other hand, you may wish to use every tool available to a digital photographer to create what you consider the best image that can possibly be created.
Neither is right or wrong, good or bad. It's a preference or a requirement depending on your situation.

Here is the key:

Where the problems arise is usually when people don't pick their side. They "sit on the fence" or don't have the right skills and only half do things.
A hugely processed image can still look great if it's done correctly. If it's a good representation/reflection of the subject and if it's intent is clear, it's a success.
The issue becomes when the processing is half done and/or badly done. These images fail because they are no longer a good reflection/representation of the subject and the intent of the image may not be clear.

I like to shoot both digital and film because I like both sides. Whichever medium I'm using, I make certain for that period my mind fully understands the side I am on.
Film photography is challenging and highly rewarding as it's limitations are great.
Digital gives greater scope for the end result and I use it to it's full benefits. It can be equally rewarding.

As long as you pick a clear side with processing, you can be both a digital photographer or a film photographer with a digital camera.
I use a film camera for my film representation for no other reason than to keep the traditional side as fully traditional as possible.
I began photography this way, it's nice to revisit the past, it's a sentimental thing, I enjoy it this way.

 

[jamesev]

Film was a multistep analogue process. The digital equivalent was picking the film and the paper you want to use and the darkroom process. The difference with digital is that you can fine tune with sliders. with Film your sliders were exposure seconds and fluid strengths etc which i guess didn't give the level of controls.

 

[MatBin]

Digital photography is a 2 step process. (Capture and Process)
Film photography is a 1 step process. (Capture. If you did darkroom work, it becomes one and a bit. Darkroom is incomparable to what you can do with digital processing)

I think a few might disagree with that statement.
Many an image has been transformed in the darkroom, just that in days gone by most tried a bit harder (perhaps) to get it right in camera first time, partly because you cant easily shoot 3000 frames on a film camera in one go, well, you can but the cost of film and the processing of 84 rolls of 36 exp might have your boss having a word or two in your ear, not to mention probably missing the best shot when changing films.

Watched the programme on IKEA last night, at one point their photographer was shooting the cover photo and he said he would probably shoot 3000 images!!!! Can you imagine Vogue standing for that in the 70's on film.

 

[Phil V]

...

Digital photography is a 2 step process. (Capture and Process)
Film photography is a 1 step process. (Capture. If you did darkroom work, it becomes one and a bit. Darkroom is incomparable to what you can do with digital processing)



...

Film was a multistep analogue process. The digital equivalent was picking the film and the paper you want to use and the darkroom process. The difference with digital is that you can fine tune with sliders. with Film your sliders were exposure seconds and fluid strengths etc which i guess didn't give the level of controls.

Just to clarify:
Ever since the invention of the negative film photography has been a 2 step process.
It might be easier with digital, but complex processing is as old as photography.

 

[Fleury]

I think a few might disagree with that statement.
Many an image has been transformed in the darkroom, just that in days gone by most tried a bit harder (perhaps) to get it right in camera first time, partly because you cant easily shoot 3000 frames on a film camera in one go, well, you can but the cost of film and the processing of 84 rolls of 36 exp might have your boss having a word or two in your ear, not to mention probably missing the best shot when changing films.

Watched the programme on IKEA last night, at one point their photographer was shooting the cover photo and he said he would probably shoot 3000 images!!!! Can you imagine Vogue standing for that in the 70's on film.

Just to clarify:
Ever since the invention of the negative film photography has been a 2 step process.
It might be easier with digital, but complex processing is as old as photography.

But with film did come time, cost and the limitations to the average photographer. Colour, contrast, tonal and brightness adjustments could be done relatively easily. Even these basic adjustments for the colour photographer were restricted to mainly professionals with decent budgets to work with. This is why I suggest film as a one step process because for most people it was. There was no manipulation of the image after the shooting stage. The average photographer turned to black and white to try and gain just a little of this control. What the average photographer did was accept what came from the camera as the end result. Today's photographer on the most limited of budget's can still do far more than anyone could do back in the film days.

 

[Ed Sutton]

This is why I suggest film as a one step process because for most people it was. There was no manipulation of the image after the shooting stage.

Sounds like the way most non-hobbyist/casual photographers I know use their cameras - set to jpeg (probably never heard of raw), upload to web.

 

[MatBin]

I think digital is a one step process for "most" people, cameraphone and P&S users dont use PhotoShop, Lightroom or even Manufacturers own s/w. Many "serious" amateurs dont either, whereas many many amateurs processed their own in film days, including processing the negs themselves, so film was (is) much more than a one stage process.

 

[Fleury]

Sounds like the way most non-hobbyist/casual photographers I know use their cameras - set to jpeg (probably never heard of raw), upload to web.

They go into settings? Are you sure? haha
They do use the editing apps on phones though. Filter after filter after filter. Overdone skin smoothing one is the worst.

 

[Ed Sutton]

They go into settings? Are you sure? haha
They do use the editing apps on phones though. Filter after filter after filter. Overdone skin smoothing one is the worst.

The people I know use their cameras as they come out of the box. So, no. They don't go into the settings!

I never mentioned phones, because they are not cameras.

 

[HoppyUK]

I've read through most of this thread and it's been an interesting discussion. Many points I agree with.
I have many opinions on this subject but I'll just try and keep my views short, sweet and easy to read.

Digital photography is a 2 step process. (Capture and Process)
Film photography is a 1 step process. (Capture. If you did darkroom work, it becomes one and a bit. Darkroom is incomparable to what you can do with digital processing)

With both mediums you look at a scene and determine what the end result will be.
Difference between the two mediums is with film you only have capture as the tool. Digital you have capture and process.
Digital you can evaluate what camera needs to do and what computer needs to do. A good photographer will do this before pressing the shutter.
Film you only have the camera to work with. You are more limited. A scene that may work with digital simply won't work with film. You may need to come up with an alternative shot that can be handled by the camera alone.

With digital we can do anything. You can process the living daylights out of a pic or you can do nothing but a few minor basic adjustments.
What you do depends on your own personal preference or requirement.
You may wish to keep things traditional and keep your photography as a true representation of "the capture of light."
On the other hand, you may wish to use every tool available to a digital photographer to create what you consider the best image that can possibly be created.
Neither is right or wrong, good or bad. It's a preference or a requirement depending on your situation.

Here is the key:

Where the problems arise is usually when people don't pick their side. They "sit on the fence" or don't have the right skills and only half do things.
A hugely processed image can still look great if it's done correctly. If it's a good representation/reflection of the subject and if it's intent is clear, it's a success.
The issue becomes when the processing is half done and/or badly done. These images fail because they are no longer a good reflection/representation of the subject and the intent of the image may not be clear.

I like to shoot both digital and film because I like both sides. Whichever medium I'm using, I make certain for that period my mind fully understands the side I am on.
Film photography is challenging and highly rewarding as it's limitations are great.
Digital gives greater scope for the end result and I use it to it's full benefits. It can be equally rewarding.

As long as you pick a clear side with processing, you can be both a digital photographer or a film photographer with a digital camera.
I use a film camera for my film representation for no other reason than to keep the traditional side as fully traditional as possible.
I began photography this way, it's nice to revisit the past, it's a sentimental thing, I enjoy it this way.

Saying film is one-step and digital is two-step just provokes argument. The only film that is one-step is slides, but shooting digital to JPEG is also one-step, and that's how the vast majority of digital images are made.

When it comes to 'distorting reality' you can hardly go further than shooting black & white, yet this is commonly regarded as the most 'factual' medium through our conditioning by newspapers. Just goes to show how complex and subjective the whole thing is. It's impossible to draw defining lines that everyone agrees with, but personally I don't have a problem with that.

 

[john.margetts]

Digital photography is a 2 step process. (Capture and Process)
Film photography is a 1 step process. (Capture. If you did darkroom work, it becomes one and a bit. Darkroom is incomparable to what you can do with digital processing)

Back when I had a darkroom, I used the Sabatier effect a lot. After producing the 35 mm negative, I produced a 10 x 8 lith interneg, exposed it, partially developed it, re-exposed it, finished developing it, dried it, produced a second lith interneg from the first, exposed it, partially developed it, re-exposed it, finished developing it, dried it, produced a 10 x 8 paper print, developed it.

The end result is very difficult to reproduce with digital processing - I have spent a very great many hours trying!

 

[Fleury]

Saying film is one-step and digital is two-step just provokes argument. The only film that is one-step is slides, but shooting digital to JPEG is also one-step, and that's how the vast majority of digital images are made.

When it comes to 'distorting reality' you can hardly go further than shooting black & white, yet this is commonly regarded as the most 'factual' medium through our conditioning by newspapers. Just goes to show how complex and subjective the whole thing is. It's impossible to draw defining lines that everyone agrees with, but personally I don't have a problem with that.

You make good points. Too good, you're killing all my long post I typed!
Think I might bail out of this thread. Interesting to read all the different views on the subject of processing be it digital or film.