Substance in the Digital World

[michael_bizon]

A question for around the fire let's say, Has anyone watched and seen how much originals go for?

Paintings, Photographs, Hand Written Notes, and even negatives for that matter, could someone explain

to me how anything in the digital world is considered a physical item? something you can hold? We

have IRA's and stocks? but truly they are nothing compared to Gold and Diamonds as a physical

commodity, a Human Need! I'm curious as to when a digital image becomes something real! (after it's

printed?) just a thought! I would like to hear your view, thanks..

[sam_thompson2]

Originals cost more because of limited supply with digital you have infinite supply unless you choose to limit it somehow which is near impossible. I would say that if you combine a digital file along with some collectible physical package then it becomes a real item. Examples of this include DVDs, CDs, printable pages, prints etc...

[mrstubbs]

A bit like asking if love is real. I guess it depends who you ask.

[Norma Desmond]

<i>"but truly they are nothing compared to Gold . . ."</i>

<br><br>

I'd rather have 10,000 dollars' worth of stocks than 1,000 dollars' worth of gold.

[Brad_]

>>> ... could someone explain to me how anything in the digital world is considered a

physical item?

 

A print from a digital file is a physical, tangible object. A print from a negative is tangible as

well. Both file and negative can produce multiple copies of a print. Both are sold in galleries.

 

What is the difficulty in understanding this? Just another tiresome anti-digi rant...

[steve_swinehart]

"...something you can hold?"

 

Sure, my SD card...

[michael_bizon]

This is definately "not another anti-digi-rant", how about offering your experience, if you

shoot images to create art, when do you consider the crafting of your work done, a final

print? hung in a gallery, signed? I'd like to know, since one day I will be shooting images

with digital.

[Brad_]

>>> A print from a digital file is a physical, tangible object. A print from a negative is

tangible as well. Both file and negative can produce multiple copies of a print. Both are sold

in galleries.

 

Still wondering about the difficulty you have grasping this concept...

[michael_bizon]

Then all you have to say is WHEN I PRINT IT, that's all Brad, you don't need to qualify

yourself by being rude, I understand the point clearly, but it is also a chance to hear

about how you deal with the concept of the original, once you have sold a print, will that

be it for your "original" no more modifications, to be stored in whatever media you have?

do you do a limited run and that's it? I understand the concept clearly, just seeing how

other people think of it.

[Spearhead]

<i>once you have sold a print, will that be it for your "original" no more modifications, to be stored in whatever media you have?</i><p>What does this have to do with "digital"? You can modify the print over time with film or digital, there's no reason not to understand that a print from digital is physical, just like from film. So what is the question?

[michael_bizon]

for instance there are only so many prints taken from the originals with Ansel Adams

photos, since it's a finite commodity, it has created value, the original being the most

valueable, with painters this is obvious, sculpters the same, how does the digital realm

create value, in art. Prints only? since there isn't an original or is there? I run across alot

of people who will only by prints created from the original, how in this digital world due

you answer that question?

[Norma Desmond]

Getting back to your original question, Michael, I consider my files to be very real, as real as anything I hold in my hand. Whether I refer to them as physical or virtual has meaning in terms of conception and ideology but not, for me, in terms of practice. I can lose them, damage them, destroy them, keep them, talk about them, change them, and print them. They are valuable to me, as valuable as anything "physical" I own. Prints, of course, are prints, whether from older cameras or digital ones. I think any qualitative difference felt about virtual realities is probably born of some kind of subjective bias or resistance to what is new and to what feels different and possibly unfamiliar. I find nothing more tangible about holding a negative than I do about sitting at my computer and calling up a file. Perhaps it's the way in which we use and define the word "tangible" that needs to evolve, and not some insufficiency of the digital world.

[ben_goren]

<blockquote>

<p><em>This is definately "not another anti-digi-rant", how about offering your

experience, if you shoot images to create art, when do you consider the crafting of your

work done, a final print? hung in a gallery, signed? I'd like to know, since one day I will be

shooting images with digital.</em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Personally, I doubt I’ll consider <em>anything</em> I ever do to be

“done.” I might or might not re-visit it, but I can’t think of a single

thing I’ve ever worked on in any medium (artistic or otherwise) that couldn’t

use some improvement. “That’s enough for now” is about as close as

I’ve ever gotten.</p>

 

<p>As to your original question…well, nothing exists in our universe without some

sort of physical form. Sure, there’re lots of representations of abstractions, but

those representations are solidly grounded in physicality. You can imagine anything you

want, but that imagining is going on in your brain, which is quite physical. A digital

photograph may be “only” a bunch of ones and zeros, but those ones and

zeros only exist in the pattern of alternating magnetic polarities on a hard disk (etc.).</p>

 

<p>The <em>only</em> difference between the physicality of a digital photograph and

a film one lies in the particular composition of that physicality. You’re just hung up

on the fact that the physical representations are varied and numerous per photograph, and

that most of them don't resemble the photograph to our senses at all.</p>

 

<p>Is a film negative the “real” photograph? Of course not! It looks nothing

like what we think of as the photograph. It’s tiny and the colors are all worng,

unbelievably so to anybody not familiar with the medium. Now, consider how much

<em>more</em> worng the exposed but undeveloped negative is....</p>

 

<p>The image review on the display on the back of the camera is <em>much</em>

more “real” than a negative, in the sense that it’s a much better

representation of the phtographer’s vision. Never mind that it only exists for a few

seconds; that film negative isn’t exactly permanent either.</p>

 

<p>If you’re simply looking for some kind of artificial scarcity to inflate the

monetary value of your photography for “collectors,” then do as RM L.

suggested: make the prints you want to sell, and destroy all other copies of the image in

whatever medium. But be careful to have a well-defined and properly-documented

method of destruction, lest you — inadvertently or otherwise — get exposed

for fraud&hellip.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I run across alot of people who will only by prints created from the original, how in

this digital world due you answer that question?<P>

 

I create another print from the original <s>negative</s> file. Some are editioned. Some are

not. Just like darkroom prints. Still don't see how this is a "digital" issue...

[steve_swinehart]

I have a friend who has made (and sold) 40,000 prints of a single image - the original image is a 35mm transparency. The prints were made at a photo lab by a variety of lab personnel from a series of internegatives. About 10,000 prints were made from each internegative before it had to be replaced because of the dyes fading. None of the prints were ever made from the "original" - the transparency...and the photographer himself never made any of the prints.

 

So, given that you can make a nearly unlimited amount of prints from either film or a digital file - what's your point?

[steve_swinehart]

"...once you have sold a print, will that be it for your "original" no more modifications..."

 

Not a concept followed by many photographers...including Ansel Adams... as many of his prints of the same image changed markedly over his lifetime.

[michael_bizon]

Fred, great point on the "tangible aspect" should have thought of that myself.

 

As far as where this is in a digital matter, I guess I should have broaden the horizon of the

question and just asked how people assimilate digital originals into their world? We put a

lot of value on things we can hold, sure a negative, or transparency doesn't look like the

image it represents, but it's a physical commodity, still one we could see unaided with our

eyes. I apologize if there doesn't seem to be a definite question here, but just curious on

others ideas about digital substance, kind of the whole reason I wanted to ask this in the

philosophical forum.

 

If you have moved over the transition without pause, and never looked back, then this

topic probably doesn't need to be answered by you. But for the people who noticed the

difference and paused just a little, asked some questions, then I would like to here

about your experiences. thanks for all the input so far. M..

[steve_swinehart]

"But for the people who noticed the difference..."

 

What "difference"? If I show you a print - can you tell me whether it was made from an image captured on film or a digital memory card?

[Brad_]

>>> We put a lot of value on things we can hold, sure a negative, or transparency doesn't

look like the image it represents, but it's a physical commodity,

 

A hard drive, CD, memory card, etc is a physical "commodity" that you can hold. As far as a

negative having any great intrinsic commercial retail value, no, other than the potential value

for the *photographer* (and copyright holder) to create additional prints. Some might have

collectable value - Muybridge, Curtis, etc. That is a rare exception though.

[umut_arslan]

Digital world have no Substances, everything exist virtually, like a simulation, without future. This is a very good question Michael, it is time to think about. Yes, there is a lot of difference between digital files and negatives, i can see them without a computer and everywhere in the world, not only in Europe or North-America, and I can reproduce them too. Yes, gold and diamonds are real like silver.

[steve_swinehart]

Well Michal - so far we've debunked:

 

The idea that film limits the number of "originals" you can make. Therefore, somehow the image is "more valuable."

 

The idea that once a print is made you don't change the interpretation (make modifications).

 

And now you're stuck on digital "originals" versus film "originals."

 

Why don't you explain why having what you call a tangible item you can hold is so important to you? I'm interested in the importance of the holdable original, especially within the context of the image NOT being finished until a print is made.

 

The image - as captured on film or digital media - is often just the starting point in the creative process. The final print is often markedly different than the raw image. The raw image (film or digital) may not, in and of itself, be the final product desired by the photographer as it is not totally expressive of photographer's intent.

 

If the raw image is not the final product but only the beginning of the process to arrive at the desired image - the final print - then why is it important to have something you can hold in your hand and view? Especially, since what you'd be viewing may not be the desired end product of the photographer?

[Spearhead]

I think Steve has covered all the possibilities here. There's obviously a hidden agenda, otherwise this wouldn't even be a question.

[michael_bizon]

I'm glad you debunked Steve,

 

Jeff and Brad, you two seem to be paranoid about something, if your not sure about what

I'm talking about, then ask a question, if all your going to do is throw in your little jagged

comments all the time, then move on, don't waste your time trying to figure this out.

 

With all that said, you folks are happy in the medium of digital, and I think it's great, keep

going strong. I'm not exactly thrilled about needing a electrical current to view my work,

that's me, and for some reason I thought there might be others, maybe not! Again I'm

sure you guys will pick apart everything I just said, Like: "you need a light bulb to view a

slide, that uses electrical current! as well!"

 

maybe it's just the principle, of trusting so much to technology.

[Spearhead]

Nobody said anything about "happy" and I'm not paranoid. You have no premise here, but it's obvious you have a personal agenda about digital and this is yet another post in that personal agenda. It's not philosophical, the answers are very simple here. A print can be made from digital or film, it doesn't matter, in the end you have a print. There are billions of prints floating around for which there are no longer negatives.

[Brad_]

>>>> maybe it's just the principle, of trusting so much to technology.

 

Ah, finally, the sun comes out... Turned out to be a (not so) thinly disguised anti-digi screed

after all...