Erwin: "Photography does not exist anymore!"

http://imx.nl/photosite/comments/c039.html

 

An excerpt:

 

"It is truly bad that the Leica company has been totally occupied with the

transition from film-based to sensor-based image capture and is forgetting its

heritage of great silver halide photography."

 

Reactions?

lol?

This is indeed a matter of great debate. I still have many friends who look down upon digital and frown at the use of software to post process an image. Would like to have the opinions of other experienced photographers.

 

Perhaps this thread should be kept as a "sticky" for a few days.

Another excerpt: "The fundamental issue here is the fact that the laws of physics create the image, in particular by the characteristics of light rays and the interaction between photons and silver halide grains."<P>

Changing energy states of electrons in silver halide compounds = physics; changing energy states in a piece of silicon = magic!<P>

 

 

And another: "Everybody can create technologically perfect images at this moment: the powerful post processing software will take care of all technical hurdles that the film-based photograph had to master."<P>

 

That conveniently ignores both decades of auto-everything cameras and the current abundance of crappy digital photos. If anything, getting an accurate exposure is more critical with digital than with negative film.<P>

One more: "It is possible to select a number of products and to adopt a certain workflow that is close to the heart of what constitutes the classical film-related photography style, exemplified by the Magnum photos, but not restricted to that approach."<p>

It's also possible to select many renowned

"film" photographers whose methodologies and results are nothing like what Erwin is presenting as his very-limited view of "real photography."<P>

Perhaps the the title of the article should have been, "Logical thought doesn't exist anymore!"

I luv the way EP, , creates a universe of discourse by creaating a psuedo dialectic. You can argue till the cows come home that there are qualitative differences between film and digital, but the fact still remains, both are means of recording light on a medium. And though the tools of the craft may change, there is still craft. What Mike says above makes much more sense to me.

 

What is photography or a photograph in the broader sense, is whole different question. I may not have answers to it, other than I know the universe of it is far broader than Putts' mythological realm of "real photography".

Well, he wrote "Death of Photography" in 2003.

<i>...its heritage of great silver halide photography</i>

<p>

I must of missed something. I dont recall Leica ever had a heritage of silver halide film or any other kind of film for that matter.

I don't buy the immutability and authenticity of film argument either. Photos have been

doctored from day one...whether it was to paint in clouds because early film washed out the

skies, colorizing the film and painting in rosy cheeks on portrait photos, or even like the

Soviets. They were masters of photo retouching and would remove purged political figures

from photographs. Literally trying to erase their presence from the historical record. The only

difference with digital is that these sorts of techniques are easier to learn, easier to do and

more effective. <P>But I agree with Mark completely...it's all just changing energy states in

different media. Of course, that has nothing to do about whether one prefers film or digital,

but the argument that digital is not photography does not make sense to me.

At the turn of the last century (1900's) I would bet there were reams of articles written about the death of the most civilized mode of transportation, the horse and buggy. It is OK to be reflective and maybe even a bit reluctant to embrace the latest technologies, old ways are comforting to many folks. Sorry to burst your bubble but photography did not die in a darkroom filled with smelly chemicals it thrives on your computer.

silver halide photography will exist as long as you make it exist!

"At the turn of the last century (1900's) I would bet there were reams of articles written about

the death of the most civilized mode of transportation, the horse and buggy."

 

Especially by those who made buggies and wagon wheels. :)

"hanging energy states of electrons in silver halide compounds = physics; changing energy

states in a piece of silicon = magic!"

 

Hmmm. I thought both were physics.

Ho-hum.

Back in the early 1900's - the old school photographers were lamenting the death of "real photography" in face of all that new fangled, "Kodakery" which was occurring after the introduction of roll film cameras.

 

It kind of makes you want to coat an emulsion onto some glass plates, grab the trusty large format camera and hit the streets.

There must be other ways of fixing the effects of photons hitting a surface.

Well here we go again, film vs digital. I maybe simple-minded, but if I produce a picture

with a light-tight box I call it photography. Film, digital, glass plate--they all do the

same thing.

 

I do admit to a certain loneliness these days for my film RF cameras. But that's more a

problem of not having enough time to do street photography these days. I've decided (for

reasons I won't explain now) to use film RFs for most of my street photography. And that's

another story.

And I thought I was pretty proficient in English all these years. Time for me to go and get a check-up.

Puts is now playing in the theatre of the absurd. Surely it is the quality of the image that

matters, not whether is was made digitally or with film. You can look at my <a

href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/sets/72157594271568487/

show/"><u>Bangkok series</u>, </a>

 

whose 113 photographs 48 were made with the Leica-M6 and the remainder with the

Ricoh GR-D except for about a dozen shot with the Leica D-Lux 3: they either work as

photographs or they don't but that is not at all related to whether they are digital or film in

origin.

<p>

--Mitch/Potomac, MD

Film v.s. digital...not contest...they're equally powerful tools.

 

 

But what is changing is how the medium is marketed, and how many manufactures are really playing on the idea that with digital a great image is only a keystroke away.

 

I sell this stuff...have for the last 20 years. Never before have I had 'pros' who don't know what 'depth of field' is (happened last week, a working pro (wedding shooter) who when asking why her 10-20 F5.6 Sigma couldn't soften the background, had no idea what I was talking about when I tried to explain the depth of field a 10mm lens has at F8.

 

Or someone who has just graduated from a 2 year photography course at a local college who, when interviewed for a job admitted they had no idea how to color print, and whose capability in PhotoShop was to add or subtract color hit or miss. Had no idea what his prospective employer meant when he said a print needed 20 points of magenta.

 

It's the dumbing down of photography that will kill it. Soon people like the above are going to be the norm (fact: many of the popular evening courses in photography available these days never touch on DOF...what digi P&S with their extreme wides with maximum apertures of F3.5 can blow out a background...even at the telephoto setting).

 

If they don't teach these techniques, eventually they will be forgotten...then the world (even the 'pro world) will be full of mundane images that no one cares about.

It's really easy to understand the views many leica owners have developed knowing that EP

has been their "Dear Leader" for so long...

everyone has a pen, pencil or word processor so i guess writing doesn't exist anymore....

i'm going to have to edit my business card, it reads "photographer", i'll have to make that "magician".... no wait, make that "imagician."

I think that Puts is just working through in his mind/on the web thoughts about the future of photography - no bad thing, although most people will fail to see the point as the future is here. Despite all the comments above there is still a difference between digital and film and some people still feel and see it. Also remember of course that there are many people who shoot film and print digitally. The view on photonet seems to be that digital is "exciting" and that film is "dead and for nostalgic purposes only".

<i>Despite all the comments above there is still a difference between digital and film and some people still feel and see it. </i><p>

He wasn't simply claiming that digital is different than film; he was claiming that digital isn't photography.

"It's the dumbing down of photography that will kill it."

 

I don't agree, I think all that will do is make it easier for someone with skill and knowledge to get ahead of the competition. In my experience even someone who's never picked up a camera can tell a great shot from a so-so shot, even if he can't put into words why. And I'm not talking about whether it was shot with a Canon or a Leica, I'm talking about composition, color, selective focus, tonal range and all the little details a skilled photogapher/printer knows.

 

"The view on photonet seems to be that digital is "exciting" and that film is "dead and for nostalgic purposes only".

 

That's the view in most of the world.

Tom, I'm not talking about the few people who frequent places like photo.net.

 

I'm talking about the thousands (millions) who now think their cell phone takes great pics (and again I'm not just talking resolution...but things like selective focus).

 

These are the people who are buying images. One of the biggest problems wedding shooters now have is the competition from the guy/gal down the street who has a 30D and charges 500 bucks for his complete wedding package. They're pretty crappy photos, because he really doesn't know what he's doing, but the happy wedding couple just knows his pictures are a ton better than what they're getting from their cell phone.

 

In the past people knew what a good photo was because they got thier news form the likes of Time/Life/Look/Stern, etc. Now most people idea of good photography (and what they base good photos on) is in the likes of People/Us.