Substance in the Digital World

[keith selmes]

"if I sign up to digital photography, then I also sign in to the technology industry, computers, hardrives, scanners, copiers etc. etc. the list is endless"<BR>

true, but then I don't have room for an actual darkroom, and the equipment list is endless too!<BR>

My specialised photographic computer gear takes very little extra space over the normal home office, just a larger printer and scanner than usual.<P>

 

"the difference in mind sets"<BR>

John refers to<BR>

"the inherent differences between digital and non-digital imaging process, especially brainwork"<P>

 

I have not thought deeply about that, but when I do clear time and space for some film work, it is a different process entirely, and there is great satisfaction in going through the whole process without ever touching a computer.<P>

 

"we as a race are furthering ourselves from the natural world, am I willing to take another step away from the physical one?? "<P>

 

When I print from film, I use POP and sunlight, and I feel there is something in that.

However it isn't inherent in film work, as I think most people would use an entirely artificial environment and light source.<BR>

Though few would do it, it is possible to do film with your own hand made paper, and derive your chemicals from raw materials. However you've ripped your chemicals out of the earth, and returned small scale pollution, so I don't see a moral advantage.<BR>

Its a different method of working, which has an appeal, sort of like growing your own food, but whilst it might be a personal thing, its not really a moral thing. Thats my view.<P>

[grain]

I've often said that Photography is about an artifact that is the photo, and Digital is about

ones and zeros, which are numbers. Digital imagery is meaningless until extrapolated into

an image by extremely complicated processes, all of which deliver slightly different

results, take your pick of printers.

In short, one is real now, one isn't ever. I've been working a lot with my Polaroid 350 this

week, and many wanna-be's smirk and show me their gazillion mega whatever digital

cameras. I see the secret envy in their eyes though, as I peel back that acetate as the timer

goes off to reveal a glossy black and white hard copy, tangible and real in hand, right now.

It's value? Since there's only one copy and no negative to work from, I'd say pretty high.

[Spearhead]

I always figure that people who spend their time thinking about what other people are thinking about their equipment aren't really thinking about the right things if they are interested in photography. Seems more like a psychology exercise than an artistic endeavor.

[sprouty]

<I>"Digital imagery is meaningless until extrapolated into an image by extremely complicated processes..."</I>

<P>

Your statement only proves that you actually have no idea how complicated the Polaroid process is.

[grain]

Maybe so, sp... But as genius a stroke as polaroid peel apart film may be, it's still a pretty

simple process. I'm well aware of the chemical gymnastics involved, and have read with

interest the patent language disputes kodak put forth to excuse their theft of it.

Responding to the original post was the idea. Read it again, please. Q: Is there such a

thing as a Digital Original? A: Not really.

As to my thinking too much about others are thinking about my equipment, Jeff: Would I

go around with a flea market 350 to show off? It just does something none of my others

can do and I enjoy using it. (I don't enjoy reading thermometers, checking timers, cleaning

rollers and looking for handy waste baskets just to be seen with it)

Call me out like that just for spite and I'll tell you what's what.

Cheers and lighten up!

A.

[dg1]

The digital process is behind the scenes and quite simple for the photographer, just as the Polaroid process is.

 

The only original in a photograph is at the moment the photo is taken in the mind and eye of the photographer, everything including the resulting negative, print, or crt image is an artifact. Post processing is an attempt to get the photographic image to look like the "original" or what the photographer thinks the original looked like.

 

Each of my turds is unique, and original.. that doesn't make them especially valuable.

[grain]

A painting smeared with elephant dung by Turner Prize winning artist Chris Ofili, that he

donated to the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), was auctioned to raise money for the

elephants at Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, and sold for $105,000.00 USD.

Chris Ofili commented "I am absolutely delighted that the painting has raised so much for

the elephants. I couldn't create my paintings without them, so it's extremely rewarding to

be able to offer them something to say thanks after all these years".

 

Light-en-up!

[marcofrancardi]

my little contribution:

to me, final target of a picture is to create a "reaction" into the person who is looking at it. doesn't matter if he/she/me is looking at a print or into a monitor. the "thing" becomes real and "Phisical" in the Smile/frown/tears of the person that is looking at it.

I used to shoot slides 95% of my time. And people were looking at "Light in the screen" now they are looking at "light in the monitor" can't see much difference. the important and physical thing are their reactions.

[michael_bizon]

so a photographer with a camera spends an hour composing an image and takes it, are

they the same as a photographer who captures the image in two seconds and spends an

hour in photoshop to make the image presentable, ? at some point graphic design starts

to come out, and for all it's worth, is way more than I know and I don't for one minute

pretend to know much about the subject. Am I less of a photographer??

 

This subject could have been presented better by me, as John said: My OT could have been

better. There really isn't an easy answer to the important questions here either, (that's

why it's a philosophical remark) in hindsight I really shouldn't ask any of this at all, the

answers are right in front of me and asking a group who is so steadfast at their own

systems and opinions, it's hard to gather momentum and move forward. Each one has

their own thoughts, it's a bummer since so many hold the same passions, and yet due to

the technologies they hold in their hand, they have already lost the important part of the

question?

[mike dixon]

<i> so a photographer with a camera spends an hour composing an image and takes it, are they the same as a photographer who captures the image in two seconds and spends an hour in photoshop to make the image presentable, ?</i><P>

Who produced a better photo?<P>

Let's say one writer takes his time to write a story: he carefully outlines the plot, he writes each sentence carefully, it takes him three days to put together his first (and final) draft. Another writer sits down at his word processor, bangs out the story in 2 hours, then spends another 2.6 days editing, rewriting, and polishing until he has the final story. Which one is a better writer? How can we tell if we don't read either of their stories?<P>

<i> Each one has their own thoughts, it's a bummer since so many hold the same passions, and yet due to the technologies they hold in their hand, they have already lost the important part of the question?</i><P>

What, exactly, <b>is</b> the important part of the question? Or, what is the important part of the question that you haven't yet received an answer to?

[michael_bizon]

good point Mike!,

 

it's irrelevent for me to answer who produces a better photo.

 

and as I have said I have received an answer to my posted question, many answers in fact

 

for there to be Substance in the Digital World, all one has to do is type "Control P"

[DB_Gallery]

This is pretty common discussion among true artists who use either digital or film or even

both to attain the final image. But yet, it seems on this site, a select few do a great job at

setting the would be poster of the question to practically hang them selves.

 

Michael, despite the seemingly abusive and truly poor company you are in, there are a few

even keeled types. This whole photography, what is real, what is not real, what is valuable,

what is not thing, it is all perception. These are great times to be a photographer, you

have more choices than ever. As a fine artist, you can use any methods you wish to

produce your final result. And...if you don't like the company you are in, you don't have to

continue to hang out in that crowd, there are other great places to hang out and discuss

your chosen method of communication with the world.

 

Does that make you luddite or elitist or worse? No, it makes you genuine. I happen to use

both film and digital to accomplish my tasks as a full time shooter. For fine art, I prefer

film and traditional darkroom methods. I really don't have any reason for this other than I

feel differently when I am making images of this type, so the very different process of

using film kind of goes hand in hand for me.

 

Now...back to that perception thing...

 

Think about how much of how we live our lives is digital. The phone, the computer, the

medical industry, almost everything. It kind of all makes it a level playing field to me, so I

find my self looking for something different to trigger that part of my subconscious. While

the high end fine art markets are gaining respect for the digital realm as a valuable form

of art, it has been slow going. I think part of this is the fact the perception of digital as

having value is having a hard time finding it's way into the fine art world. It is happening,

but very, very slowly.

 

These are very interesting times for photography in terms of fine art. I really look forward

to seeing how it all evolves. One thing is for sure, no matter what I choose to make my

images on, none of them will be worth a darn if love at first sight between my image and

the art viewer does not occur, that is what is most important.

 

So take all of this with a grain of salt, don't let the rude folk on here get you down, they

are really troubled people with issues to be delt with.

 

Technology has not made any one medium better than the other, just different. It is up to

you to make your image truly unique and therefore, valuable.