different galleries for film and digital

[dan flanders]

The very process of making an image is manipulation. B & W manipulates colors into a gray scale, and color film manipulates the hue and saturation of colors into something different from actuality. The process of putting an image on film or paper is manipulating reality into a simulation thereof. <p> Rembrandt, Picasso, Renoir, Rubens, Michaelangelo, et al were maniplators; so what is so sacred about 'non-manipulation'? <p> Trolling, trolling, trolling!?

[erin.e]

Or more importantly, is barrett johnson really Thomas Gardener?

[dennis_couvillion]

With film one can "manipulate" what is on the negative by exposing it to more or less light in the printing process. However, only what is on the negative can be manipulated. With digital, and this is what sets it apart from film IMO, is that one can add or subtract things that are not on the image. One can add grain and even additional elements, among other things; conversely one can subtract things from the image as well and cover up the removal.

 

I think Barrett raises an interesting and legitimate point and it is offensive for digital adherents to call his suggestion "idiocy" and stupid. The bottom line is that digital is now the norm and film is the alternate method. Digital is a wonderfully sharp, immediate and convenient way of capturing images. But the aesthetics and technology are different from film. Not better; not worse; just different. I see nothing wrong with images being categorized by either the old or the new technology. In any event, it's not a stupid or idiotic idea at least.

 

Dennis

[root]

Finally, someone (Dennis) recognizes the validity of the point barrett is making.

 

What happens in these debates is that someone initially recognizes that there are some fundamental differences between digital and film in the post processing stage and tries to suggest some form of categorization without thinking through how much overlap there really is.

 

First let's recognize that the vast majority of images taken by either method are taken and processed as record shots, rendering the argument moot most of the time. (The framing argument is a red herring.) When we start exploring altered images - changing the content of the elements within the frame - it is foolish to ignore that digital techniques, especially those that seem to be able to fool so many people on this site who think they're looking at a straight capture, are far easier and therefore far more common than they ever were with film.

 

If you want to separate images, consider altering properties of light in one group, and the addition, movement, or replacement of elements within the picture space in the other. Then we can talk about your comfort level with various shades of rose-colored glasses on the one hand, and how large or small the removed elements have to be in the other.

[dennis_couvillion]

I think perhaps where Barrett brought on a little trouble was by suggesting that "digital photography should not be called photography." Words take on different meanings through common usage and, for all practical purposes, digital imaging is now the photographic "norm". In the sense of capturing images with some light sensitive process digital imaging is photography... the "new" photography. (It reminds me of the debate over gay marriages in which some folks are in favor of sanctioning gay unions but object to the word "marriage" being applied to them.)

 

I don't know about splitting galleries into digital and film based images, but the continuing and sometimes ugly debate over digital versus film makes me wonder whether an entirely new forum should be added simply to address this one topic.

 

Dennis

[tboehrer]

I would imagine there are plently of digital photographers who choose not to edit their images beyond what can be done with film.

 

Digital or film, there already is a checkbox that indicates whether an image is manipulated. Why can't we have a gallery for viewing only unmanipulated images?

[joe604]

Barrett argues that digital is not photography because it typically involves manipulation. However, his use of the terms <i>manipulation</i> and <i>photography</i> are far too narrow, as many have pointed out. Artistic manipulation (in the broadest sense) is the process of creating art whether it is with the camera equipment, the darkroom equipment, or the software. <p><p>

 

The recent POW discussion illustrates how some people desire to know what was accomplished with the camera equipment versus what was accomplished in post processing (Tracy's point). Likewise, some people desire to know what was accomplished with darkroom equipment versus computer software (Barrett's point). Wanting to know this information is appropriate on this site because one of the functions is to share technique. <p><p>

 

But no one is <i>entitled</i> to this information. Some people want their work evaluated only as a finished product without dissecting how it got there. That is their right. We should not use categories to force anyone to admit if and how they post-process their images, or whether they use film or digital cameras. <p><p>

 

The current system allows people to volunteer this information if they wish to, and they should be encouraged to do so, but that's as far as it should go. Therefore, nothing more is needed. <p><p>

 

--Joe

[root]

Joe, yours is the first post I've read that hints at equating art and manipulation. For me there are two kinds of photographic art - the art of seeing, and the art of creating. In the context of evaluating images on photo.net, I do find it useful to understand what I'm looking at in that context. If you saw something fantastic, I may attempt to go find something similar. But if your image comes from your imagination, then you've sent me on a fool's errand.

[laurie_m]

Barrett, I agree with a few of your points and understand some of your frustration. With the flood of new technology, tricks, techniques etc. There is a preponderance of heavily manipulated images on this site (both film and digital). Some (certainly not all) make it to the top of the TRP as a result of wizardry vs. real talent. Some, get slammed in the rates even though they're skillfully done and exhibit great talent. That's has always been the way in the world of art. It's a good thing the impressionist painters didn't listen to the critics.

 

What's important to consider is that over time, as people become accustomed to the "paint by numbers" filters and formulas, they'll look beyond the tricks and see the image for what it is. Manipulated or not, it really is the final result that's most important. Art isn't about tools, it's about expression. Again, this applies to both film and digital (or any other art medium). Ultimately, the cream will rise to the top. For those just dabbling and relying solely on tricks instead of their eyes and brains....they'll be hanging their prints right next to the Velvet Elvis painting in their family room. And hey....there's nothing wrong with that. If they enjoy what they're doing I encourage them to continue. The majority of us will keep struggling, using whatever tools feel right to express ourselves and our vision.

 

I don't think we need separate categories. We all draw our lines in different places. Hell, I intentionally cross mine from time to time just to see what happens. In the end, we'll all decide for ourselves.

 

Thank you for starting this energetic discussion.

[johncrosley]

When I joined the site and shot only 'film', I prided myself by saying 'I thought truthfully' that my images were entirely 'unmanipulated', because I sent my color film to a photoprocessor and when they came back, I canned them straightaway (soon with an excellent scanner - an Epson Perfection 1640 XL which does not require 'sharpening as so many of you seem to hint your scanned images need)) then posted them.

 

I somehow felt 'superior' because I was not relying on 'Photoshop' thinking I was not 'manipulating' my images, but in reality I was submitting 'manipulated' images: How so?

 

When I began shooting digitally with my Nikon D70, I found the images often very flat, lacking in contrast or with color that was off, and had to resort to Photoshop to 'correct' the image better to reflect the reality I had seen. 'Manipulation' there was a 'good' thing, which allowed me to 'restore' reality rather than depart from it.

 

And soon enough as I became friends with a Photo store proprietor with a giant Noritsu machine, I learned of the various functions of that machine -- similar to the machines the 'big box store' had been processing my negative images on. Those machines used a computer and processed for 'color, saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc. etc. etc., and sometimes they'd even crop them -- against my wishes for full frame printing)

 

So, I found out that instead of posting 'unmanipulated' images because 'I' had not Photoshopped the film images I had submitted, I simply had been submitting images that Noritsu and other machines had manipulated through their giant image processing 'computers' which are built-in. And if I had seen the images without those initial 'scans' and image processing functions, I would have been sorely upset, I am sure, because then my photos would truly have been 'unmanipulated' and I probably would have blamed the photoprocessor.

 

The real question is how much processing are you going to have.

 

I try to keep my digital images to no more post processing than a Noritsu machine would do for me (with rare exceptions for sharpening the occasional out of focus otherwise standout photo).

 

And, the new generation of camera no longer is going to focus on the number of megapixels but on 'dynamic range' -- just one function of an attempt to be more 'film-like' and digital is just in its infancy in attempts to capture images in a fashion of beauty as film has had in its long history.

 

I wouldn't count digital images out in their ability to equal or far exceed the ability of a CCD, CMOS or other sensor to be able in the future to be set to the sensitivity, saturation, hues, dynamic range, subtleties, etc. of say a Velvia, a Kodachrome, or some such, simply by the flip of a switch (avoiding brand names only for legal reasons).

 

Think about it. Digital is still in its infancy, and we're a demanding lot. The future is not necessarily in 100 megapixel files, but in great dynamic range and tailoring the sensor's characteristics for each pixel.

 

Then film may truly become an interesting and sometimes enjoyable alternative artifact.

 

John (Crosley)

[dennis_couvillion]

John:

 

There is maniupulation in processing any format. I may use Microdol-X (yea, I know, I must be the only person who still uses Microdol-X) to minimize the grain in Tri-X or HP5. That's manipulating the image... in a sense. In wet printing I will dodge and burn. That's manipulation too. However, what's on the negative is all I have to work with. I can't eliminate grain entirely if it's there. I can't bring out shadow detail if it's not on the negative. Some of this type of manipulation is done in photoshop as well.

 

However, what we were referring to was the manipulation of digital images to create things that are not on the raw image, or to eliminate things which are there. That's a different kind of manipulation than just bringing out the best in a raw image through doging and burning. I'm not sent into a fit of apoplexy when I see heavily manipulated imagery but that's usually not the type of photography I like... although admittedly I've seen some hysterically funny stuff (particularly in the French version of Photo magazine) involving heavily manipulated digital photos creating bizarre images.

 

What difference does it make? None, really, if you like to look at pictures... except that some people regard the heavily manipulated type of digital images as a distinctly different type of photography altogether. It's not that it's impossible to create untraditional, heavily manipulated type images with film (think double exposures, collages, dramatic contrast, etc.), it's just that it's easier to do (and to a greater degree) with photoshop and digital imagery, and I think some people (myself to an extent) don't fully appreciate this type of new photography which seems to be proliferating rapidly. It's all a matter of personal taste...

 

But back to the original post, I think Barret's point was valid that there are profound differences, both conceptually and technologically, between the heavily manipulated images and those that are just manipulated to bring out what's on the raw image. While I don't care one bit how the galleries are categorized, the idea of separating those types of images is not exactly stupid or idiotic.

 

Good shooting...

 

Dennis

[hanna_cowpe]

Dennis, I think Barrett stated quite clearly that he does not consider any images captured with a digital camera, be it post-camera manipulated or not, to be photography.

[dennis_couvillion]

Hanna:

 

I would respectfully disagree with Barrett's characterization that digital is not photography. As I said, digital is now the photographic norm. However, I did understand (or I think I did) his point regarding how distinctly different heavily manipulated digital images are... and I can understand the suggestion that those images be classified differently from more conventional (i.e. less manipulated) images. But, personally, I don't care how they're categorized. ;>)

 

Dennis

[hanna_cowpe]

Denis, I would tend to agree with you if your interpretation is what he said, but his words were:

 

"I think the world of "photgraphy" should be divided into atleast 2 general categories: 1) photography, which is PURE film and NO MANIPULATION at all, 2) digital imagery, digital "photos" or manipulated "photos." "

 

ie. one category for film and another category for ALL digital images. So he's making more of a distinction between film cameras and digital cameras than between images from a digital camera which have not been photoshopped and ones which have been dramatically altered. That would be about as effective as trying to get people to tick the 'manipulated' box as there are plenty of members who don't even indicate any camera details.

[dennis_couvillion]

Hanna, perhaps you're right... he did lump all digital photgraphy together.

 

However, what I find at the root of all of these debates/discussions is the objection that digital photography is so easily and extensively manipulated (heavily) that it sometimes morphs into something other than photography. If I took a few photographs (prints) and cut them into tiny pieces, then glued them randomly on a piece of mat board to form interesting patterns, is that photography? Or is it some other art form? It started out as photography. Same with digital manipulation. At what point is the original image so changed that what started out as a photograph is no longer a photograph but something else?

 

The fact that alterations can be performed so easily in digital photography makes some people suspicious of its authenticity or validity in representing things. Don't like the look of that junk car in the background? Take it out. Want the two main subjects closer together for greater effect? Move them in photoshop. I think that's why some people tend to lump all digital photography together as a process for altering images... because it's easily done and sometimes you can't tell the image has been altered. So, in that respect I understand why some people would want digital images categorized differently from film photography. I'm not saying I agree (or disagree) with that... all I'm saying is I understand the point they make.

 

Bottom line is that there are digital adherents who are resentful that some people who question whether what they do is really photography... and there are film devotees who resent the fact that not only has digital photography usurped film photography as the norm but that some people keep telling them that film photography will be nonexistent in a few years. It's an interesting, and sometimes nasty debate that won't go away quietly. That's why I think PN should consider starting a forum devoted entirely to the digital/film debate/discussion.

 

Hope my comments didn't offend... they weren't intended to.

 

Dennis

[hanna_cowpe]

Dennis, you certainly didn't offend me, infact I think we agree on most points. But there's nothing to stop someone from scanning their print taken on PURE film and manipulating it in a photo program. So unless we have an expert squad of image police to tell us what's manipulated and what isn't, we'll just have to rely on our own ability to decide what's what. But I do agree with Carl Root in being interested to know if an image has come from reality or someone's imagination.

[knicki____]

somewhere along the lines I got the impression photography had something to do with capturing light and making images from that light. Does digital not capture light? Seems to me there isnt much difference between a pin hole, a 35 mm and, and large format in that essense. They all have one purpose capture light. I could be wrong.

 

Any divisional lines drawn in the sand whether digital vs film, 35 vs mf vs lf, or all others vs leica do nothing but divide.

 

I have digital and film who cares its a camera. If I thought holding my dog's butt up to something and pinching his nose would capture a shot that I see in my head I would do it. Its about the shot, the person, not the camera.

[barrett_johnson]

i really enjoy the interaction. i wish i had more to offer the conversation. i love all works of art, but i only identify with the mediums that i can identify with. i only shoot film, because it seems to me to be a an artform. something not easy, not easily fixible in PS. i love the challenge, for that i think film will ALWAYS be admired as DIFFERENT than a digitally altered photo.

[barrett_johnson]

knicki, after posting i read your comment. i agree that an image can APPEAR to be similar if taken with both a digital and film media, however......the process in which the media is extracted seems to be my biggest hangup. whether the image is digitally corrected in PS for "balance" or "color" or "contrast" ETC.. really seems to me to an altercation of the original format. whether it be film or original digital. i appreciate a great piece of art, like Thomas Kinkade (sp?) i hate his method but love his technique.

[kevinconnery]

<i>the process in which the media is extracted seems to be my biggest hangup.</i><p>

That does seem to be the sticking point.<p>

A JPEG image straight from the camera--after some settings in camera have been chosen, much as a film stock is chosen--is no more (or less) manipulated than a similarly automatically processed slide film image. (Negative film, of course, has to be manipulated, as it doesn't directly have a 100% relationship to color or contrast.)<p>

By choosing to label one as 'photography', and one as 'not photography', your original argument alienated many who feel their work IS photography: they light their images (or find the light) the same way; they image on the recording media the same way; and they do or don't do postprocessing.<p>

That it's <i>easier</i> to manipulate digitally does not make it <i>automatic</i>, nor does the opposite apply. George Hurrell heavily retouched his negatives, often to the tune of multiple hours per image. Ansel Adams burned, dodged, bleached, and more his work. W. Eugene Smith did the same. Jerry Uelsmann did a lot more manipulation than most digital photographers do today.<p>

You're certainly welcome to your opinion about Real Photography vs Digital Imagery, but it's exactly that: an opinion that, unfortunately, neglects every other transitional period in photography: wet plate; dry plate; sheet film; roll film; 35mm film; color film; digital (and many more). Each transition was labeled 'not photography' for a while...and time moved on. Those using the older forms continued or converted, and were still "photographers", making "photographs", just as those who converted made "photographs".

[hanna_cowpe]

Barrett, okay, so we'll agree to disagree. A hang-up is always personal, but it isn't always logical.

 

Knicki, you've made my day. The description of your dog playing the role of a camera has me ROTFL.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Since cellphone camera sales have now outsell "regular digitals"; do we get a "cellphone camera" gallery too?

[randy_january]

I agree with the point that the processing of film photography is an art unto itself. I love working in the darkroom and the images that come from there can be very special to me(if not to anyone else). The one thing I cannot understand however, is the part about digital imaging not being "photography". As any person who has taken a photography class should know(or anyone interested enough to read the history), photography is a greek word that translates to "painting with light". Digital cameras simply capture the light in a different manner, but both achieve the exact same goal which is to capture the scene. As one who uses both digital and film I can see how that statement would be very insulting to those whose sole media is digital. That's like one who plays an acoustic guitar saying to a another who plays an electric guitar that it is no longer music because of the electric processing when both rely on the vibrations of the strings to create their own version of the music. Digital versus film is no different. Both rely on light waves to create their own ART(assuming of course there is an artist looking through the lense).

[eamonn.higgins]

What comes across from Barrett is an assumption that digital pictures have been radically changed; I'd guess that most digital pictures here have only been tuned in minor ways, as you can with film.

[bens]

i've tried that shot, but don't recommend it.

 

seriously though . . . if you pinch his butt, then its a lot better.

 

okay, okay, happy new year everybody. admittedly, i have been a digital photographer only. still, i can't understand the need to differentiate between film and digital, since i understand the post-capture manipulation of film images pre-dates the taft administration (now there was a face!). HOWEVER, the one issue that is interesting to me is the alteration of the photograph, digitally or via a traditional dark room, so as to actually remove or add something in the suggested "reality." i would prefer if this was somehow called out. still a slippery slope to determine what falls in this category, but i like to know when someone presents images that were not in reality together at the point of capture, if, for example, they present a close-up of a pretty cat lying in the grass and replace a background of clutter with a perfect blue sky with puffy white clouds, i like to know that. then i can admire post-processing skills, which is a different admiration than of the skills used to get that shot. and i won't believe that somewhere in the world that moment once existed, a feeling that admittedly may be what drew me to photography in the first place and may done so for others as well, perhaps explaining some what fuels these debates.

 

okay, i hear the dog barking . . .