Prediction: RAW is going to eventually be a deprecated file format

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by Karim Ghantous, Oct 18, 2019.

  1. And more power to you for doing it your way and recognizing that. But your posts contrast painting and photography as if that holds true generically. While it may be a key contrast for your way of doing photography, it clearly does not hold true for many of the rest of us. No dictionaries are necessary and it’s not a matter of semantics. Just recognizing that yours is one way and only one way.
  2. It depends. Some photographs do give me the feelings and sensibilities that come from viewing paintings. Some still life, landscapes or portraits do. Also, some paintings give me the feeling of looking at a photograph. Of course there are those that are at the far ends of the spectrum with very distinct characteristics of the respective art. However when I am thinking of something as painting vs a photograph, its not selection vs synthesis that guides my feelings. Its more of the distinct characteristics of both which include texture, use of light, dynamic range, color use and continuity etc.

    But there's so much more than simply knowing how to operate the shutter. Photography is probably one medium where an ordinary joe can get a superb picture once in a while just by random chance, I agree. Thats different than some other arts that take years of training and skills. However, comparing the portfolio of a random joe (call that me) vs an accomplished photographer, the difference is in consistency of vision and vocabulary and more number of great pictures than is achievable by random chance. I think, thats something that doesn't come from just learning how to press the shutter. Selection propelled by vision, interaction with the community, some deep realization of the surrounding world and society and an urge to express that in a message form, all come to work.

  3. You and steve seem determined to discuss things I haven't broached except by bundling into the phrase "creative issues". Why aren't you also telling me there's more to painting than just pushing pigment around a canvas?

    Do you agree that when I press the clicky thing on top of my camera I get a photograph?
    If so, do you agree this represents the invention of a radically different picture-making process?
    Well then what specifically, essentially, makes it radically different?

    The underlying structure of photography is important. If you don't investigate it you'll be limited to making vague noises about "vision and vocabulary" rather than photographically literate issues that arise , say, once I, Joe Average, not King of Canada or otherwise Very Important Person, acquire the wherewithal to suspend pictures of my ancestors on the wall.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019

  4. Not a picture scientist, i get it.
  5. Of course not. Even with a Polaroid, there are steps to be taken well past the click of the shutter, not to mention that people use their brains in a lot of steps before pushing it. With cameras other than Polaroids, it was more complicated to get a photo. Maybe all you did was press a shutter and then mail your film off to a lab, in which case you might have been oblivious to the many steps beyond pushing a shutter that were performed to get your photo, but your ignoring these steps doesn’t wish them away.

    Besides, as I followed the discussion, no one was talking about the bare minimum necessary to get what’s technically called a photo. We’re talking about processes we employ to get the photos we want. I’m skeptical that your mechanized “just push the button” process would produce photos that I care about, though they might produce something comparable to a xerox copy of the Grand Canyon, which I can get for $1.00 were i to buy a stupid postcard. Since you have no photos on view, I have no way to assess the results of your supposed method.

    As with painting, I’m not looking for pigment science. I’m looking for human craft and/or art. That’s not often as passive or lacking in nuance a process as you describe.
  6. The biggest impediment to your understanding is your churlishness.
  7. The structure of photography (selection vs synthesis) gives rise to important creative issues. Here's GB Shaw as quoted in The Photographer's Eye.

    "There is a terrible truthfulness about photography. The ordinary academician gets hold of a pretty model, paints her as well as he can, calls her Juliet, and puts a nice verse from Shakespeare underneath, and the picture is admired beyond measure. The photographer finds the same pretty girl, he dresses her up and photographs her, and calls her Juliet, but somehow it is no good — it is still Miss Wilkins, the model. It is too true to be Juliet."
  8. You said ...
    I pointed out that there are more aspects to the artistic process in photography than pressing the shutter and thinking the mission to be accomplished. Vision and vocabulary are not vague noises by any means, BTW. If you think, "studying the underlying structure of photography is important", why use statements like above, and not discuss them directly. I have stated what are the underlying aspects (pressing the shutter is the most obvious yet the most naively made a big deal of by so many people) I think are important to picture making.

    You seem to interchangeably treat the subject of photography as art vs technology whenever it suites you. In the quoted comment, you were speaking from art perspective and I replied in the same spirit. Now, in your last comment, you have switched back to technology and refer to how great an invention it is that gives you the ability to hang your ancestors' pictures on the wall. Anyway, I don't agree with your characterization of photography as selection. That description is too simplistic and misleading. There are many steps both mental and physical that come before and after pressing the shutter. Not considering them will produce a picture that likely will be of value only to you. Oh, I see Sam just said something in the same line.
    samstevens likes this.
  9. Yes!
  10. S E L E C T I O N
  11. Got it!
    Its an outdated, overrated concept that doesn't describe the overall breadth of the photographic process.

    W H A T E L S E ?
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
  12. That distinguishes it from prior arts? Nothing. Specifically, essentially, nothing. Sorry for being so obvious and direct about it. I'm open to correction. Got anything?
  13. And I have already said that selection is not a necessary feature that distinguishes the entire breadth of photography. What else? The concept of light directly imprinting a medium comes to mind, be it a random scene or a carefully arranged one. And, any average joe can ... (helping you here, not necessarily agreeing) at times with selfie sticks.
  14. "The camera does the rest [post selection], and -- very important! -- it doesn't rely on a cultural archive of knowledge, skills and attitudes in order to accomplish this feat. It's just physics."

    You want to talk about what makes a good photograph. Vision, vocabulary, etc. I get it. It's just that, in photography, those things are integral to selection, not synthesis. Painting (e.g.) necessarily has a different vocabulary. When photography was invented regular-ass people who couldn't synthesize a circle ran rampant across the globe taking -- literally taking, *click* *click* --- pictures of literally everything. It was revolutionary! People wrote letters to the editor complaining about their manners.They didn't know sh*t about the vision and vocabulary of painting or whatever. They didn't need to. Some of their pictures were memorable enough and weird enough compared to paintings to survive and reproduce in the vision and vocabulary of our own photographs today, whether we realize it or not.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
  15. Just so I understand, Are you trying to say that post processing is not photography but something else? I won't agree or disagree. I don't think it matters how it's categorized but I also don't think that distinction matters when it comes to raw vs jpeg.
  16. I call even heavily-manipulated ("synthesized") digital images photographs because that's what everyone else calls them, maybe because they start out that way. Do they have the same pictorial standards, creative issues, challenges & etc? Nah, maybe they're not different enough to stop the world from turning but different things differ.
  17. You wrong, it does. It is programmed to analise and process frame in certain way, that's why we have different "looks" of the same scene, taken with different camera brands.
    Or even film for that matter, different films have different idea of image processing built in by manufacturer .
  18. It's only a matter of time until this thread devolves into a Batman vs. Superman debate: which is the more significant, more interesting character? I'll always vote Batman but we don't have to fight about it.
  19. This is selection. You are literally selecting what should appear in the frame. Don't forget to select for a smile. Say "say cheese."
  20. By this logic, a painter selects what brush stroke to use, how to hold his arm and fingers when he's moving the brush, what among the many visions he has in head he will choose when he selects how his hand will move the brush, etc.

    This, of course, gets us nowhere.

    Photographers create and painters create. Do they do it differently? Yes. But they both create something that wasn't there before they started.

Share This Page