"What Makes A REAL Photograph" (according to ForesthillFilmLab)

A Sacramento photographer and BMXer, who real name is Travis Mortz, posted a video a day ago telling people that there's no such thing is digital photography. He claims that photography can only be done on one-time-use light sensitive materials. He also justifies this by reading and quoting books that are published no later than 1987. In fact, one of the books is published in 1931. I think he's very narrow-minded, snobbish, and will not take any criticism (I know, he blocked my comments from being seen). The really sad part is that not only he has fans agreeing his him, he's also making and raising kids to believe his warped philosophy.

 

 

His sources:

The Encyclopedia of Photography: the Comprehensive Guide and Reference for all Photographers -Willard D. Morgan, 1967

Black and White Photography: A Basic Manual, 2nd Edition - Carol Keller, 1983

The Print, 1st Edition - Ansel Adams, 1968

Photography: Its Principles and Practice - C. B. Neblette, 1931

The Illustrated Dictionary of Photography - Adrian Bailey, 1987

 

 

 

Moderator Note: Images removed as per Photo.net Terms and Conditions and User Guidelines. Do not post images that you did not make.

I enjoy that channel and watch his videos. I think language changes as time passes and the current definition would include digital imaging. . However he did add "real" to the label. . So the choices above do not include the word "real" and is not really pertinent to the point I think he was making.

I think it's rather odd you posted two pictures and a video of someone you so vehemently disagree with. And I think the children are still safe, even with this person's free speech floating about.

There's a bird outside my window (a towhee for you bird lovers) who says "Drink you tea," all day long.

 

I argue with him vehemently because I am not drinking tea: I am drinking coffee. Doesn''t bother him. He keeps saying the same thing. All. Day. Long.

I think it's rather odd you posted two pictures and a video of someone you so vehemently disagree with. And I think the children are still safe, even with this person's free speech floating about.

I'm talking about his elitist views. I believe film and digital photography can coexist together, but this guy ain't helping. If anything, he's also reinforcing stereotypes about film photographers, especially the film-only crowd. Also do you really want your children, if you have any, to grow up to have the same attitude as him?

Edited April 26, 2017 by shannon_t

There's a bird outside my window (a towhee

I think that Julie's post moves us into territory that is somewhat more likely to be fruitful.

We used to have lots of towhees here in southern Illinois, but haven't seen one in years. I guess the times (and climate) are a-changing

Also do you really want your children, if you have any, to grow up to have the same attitude as him?

No. And I wouldn't worry too much about that. Children I raise would be exposed to a host of opinions and taught to think critically. How someone else raises their children or what someone else teaches his kids about photography won't much affect my own kids, assuming I'm raising them to understand varying viewpoints and think independently.

 

Something I might try to instill in them is that an unscientific poll on the Internet where each respondent can check two boxes that contradict each other asking what real photography is might give them some sociological info but won't give them much in the way of determining what a photo is. I would instill in them the idea that Internet debates about whether film or digital photography is real photography has little to do with either photography or real photography.

Also do you really want your children, if you have any, to grow up to have the same attitude as him?

 

I still think the kids will be okay, even if they're exposed to Mortz's opinions. I don't agree with Mortz, but I am amused by how hard he's pushing all the hipster buttons -- and the Che shirt is just too cliché.

Is there such a thing as an electric lamp?

 

Yes. Lamps include both oil and electric-fueled lighting devices.

 

No. Only oiled-fueled lighting devices are lamps.

 

I can prove this by limiting the scope of my research to sources of information published before the 19th century work of Sir Humphrey Davie on battery powered platinum filament and arc lamps.

 

I'm confident that Travis Mortz was not a member of his high school debate club.

Turns out that's just the tip of the iceberg. He has an earlier video called "Film Vs. Digital: The True Costs", where he he tries to prove that film is several times less expensive than digital and then proceeds to bash digital photographers:

 

"Well you're gonna buy a $900 camera then a 5D because you're a dumb digital shooter. Us film bros know how to go to a thrift store, and use eBay, and get the savviest deal ever."

Edited April 26, 2017 by shannon_t

If I were you, and you're concerned about what your children are learning, I'd use this as a teaching moment to show them that people on the Internet will say anything to stir up controversies and/or get attention. If, on the other hand, you want to teach them about photography, teach from your own experience, from books you've read that you found helpful, and show them the work of a variety of photographers of all stripes, some you like and some you don't. Before giving your opinion of them, ask them what they think of the work.

Who cares?

Does it matter to anyone but himself what he thinks a "real photograph" is?

 

Who cares?

That would be the shorter form of my question.

From the source of all knowledge (Google): Photograph: 1. a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.:):mad::p

Every now and then, this quote leaps into my mind re Mr. Mortz:

 

His was of the order of particular and minute minds that try to whittle nothing to a point.

H.P. Robinson, Letters On Landscape Photography, 1888

What's strange about him? I think there are probably quite a lot of people on Photonet who think the same as he does.

 

But, indeed, what about the kids? Once children are brought into it, we know it is getting very serious indeed.

An image can be good and compelling whether it's taken on a disposable camera, a Hasselbad 500, an iPhone, or(insert latest high end DSLR). At the end of the day, the results are what matter, and any of the above-as well as the in betweens-are capable of such in competent hands. Heck, I'd say the average person on the street is more capable of taking a compelling photography with an iPhone or a P&S/DSLR in "green box" mode than with a Hasselbad.

 

I still use a lot of film, and have a pretty wide gamut of cameras. I have more 35mm SLRs than I care to count, a couple of LTM rangefinders(including a Leica), a couple of Rolleiflexes, two different 6x6 SLR systems, a Mamiya RB67 system, and a growing collection of 4x5 cameras and lenses. When I get the film cameras out, I tend to go into a different mindset and feel like I'm more likely to get a good result(plus I just enjoy the process, from loading the film to watching a print develop). I love dumping out a box of Velvia transparencies on the light table, or even better laying a 4x5 on it. That's me, though. When I'm looking at a compelling photo, the medium used to produce it is not what's on my mind.

But, indeed, what about the kids?

What about them indeed? No need to drag them into this discussion; everything gets already blown way out of proportion anyway. First and foremost, they are his. And second, even if exposed to his "warped philosophy" about real photography, they will also be exposed to other views and can decide for themselves. There are much worse philosophies to be exposed to then a warped sense about what is and isn't photography.

 

Why even waste 22 minutes on watching his spouting of nonsense? Why getting upset at all over what one person chooses to believe enough in to make a video about it? Why continue to try to engage when one realizes that his mind is made up about the issue? There are situations where these things are important; this is not one of them.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and the opinion and position does not have to either or. It is a spectrum.

The digital guys can get just as biased about the film guys as the film guys can get to the digital guys.

And there are guys in between that shoot mostly film and use digital, or mostly digital and use film.

And there are former film guys who moved to digital for various reasons, but still like film.

I think we're about ready for Godwin's law to eventuate, if this post does not already do that.

All the kids out there will all grow up to be fine cell phone picture takers so there is no need to worry about it. They will decide what to call it all by themselves..

I think we're about ready for Godwin's law to eventuate, if this post does not already do that.

Was there really a need for that?

Who cares?

 

We should all care, because Mortz's exposition is a good example of non-critical thinking. Today, in the world of politics and commerce, we are exposed to lots of statements that are inherently fallacious, and many people believe them to be true statements because they have not learned about logical fallacies and critical thinking.

 

Mortz's argument is based on at least three fallacies (two of which are closely related).

 

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. He justifies his position by limiting his references to material published before digital photography existed or had become widespread.

 

Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day usage. Mortz ignores the broadening of the meaning of "photography". Words are not now and never have been static in meaning. This is closely related to metonymy:

 

Metonymy – Ignoring the contiguity between concepts. Animal horns were once used to make musical instruments. Now such instruments are often made of brass but are stilled called horns although they do not contain any animal horn. Likewise, photography, which once was based on wet-plates or film now uses light-sensitive sensors. However the concept of capturing images by collecting light on a photosensitive substrate is common to both technologies.

 

What Mortz does is build what appears to be a logical argument on a fallacious foundation that may easily dupe a careless or non-critical person.

 

Obviously, Mortz's misuse of logic is of very little import in the grand scope of things. However, in politics and commerce, the inability to separate statements based on reasoned logic from those based on fallacious logic is very dangerous and can cause us great harm.

We should all care, because Mortz's exposition is a good example of non-critical thinking.

So it is a good example - are you going to show him the errors of his ways? Are you going to teach him critical thinking?

inability to separate statements based on reasoned logic from those based on fallacious logic is very dangerous and can cause us great harm

It is also very widely spread. Or to use another term: ubiquitous.

Similar to Dr. Ben's second point is the logical fallacy sometimes called "no true Scotsman." If someone comes up with an exception or contradiction to your point, you eliminate it by redefinition. Of course there is no such thing as "real" digital photography, because you can simply define "real photography" to exclude it.

 

Silly? Of course it is. If I take a slide and scan it and print it digitally, is it a photograph? If I take an image on film and take the same image digitally, and the two look alike, is one right and the other wrong? How hard must you work to perceive a difference before it is unimportant?

 

When a VIP appears in town and a reporter takes a picture, and the newspaper prints the half tone on the front page, at what point did it stop being a photograph?