photography or photographics ?

[rashedahmed]

Though the word photography came from Latin word photo & graphos (drawing with light ) but now a days it has become

photographics ( drawing with software).The real essence of photography is missing. See the work of old master

photographers.You will find simple composition and great lighting techniques that captured the mood or emotion of the

subject, may it be a portrait or a landscape photography shot by 4×5 film camera. Digital cameras gave us speed in

photography but the emotion is missing. Long ago a poet wrote " Science has given us motion but taken away our emotions."

[David_Cavan]

<p>Time to grab a coffee and settle in for this one.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Yep, grabbing the popcorn.<br>

Rashed, just in case: this has been discussed over and over here. Maybe do a search on previous discussions and you'll get an idea of what people will think of your statement.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Rashed,<br>

I understand your preference for emotion, mood and other values in photography. I think one can find contemporary examples of this as much as one can find more ordinary less revealing (from a communication standpoint) examples of the uses of the camera 50 or 100 years ago. The art is in the mind of the photographer and not in his equipment. The first photograph (Niepce is usually credited with that) and those following owed as much to science in their time, perhaps more so (as it was a process of discovery), than the mechanisms and image editing software of today, which are outpourings of engineering using much known applied science. </p>

<p>I wish people would not always invoke digital versus film, but instead refer to the approaches in photography, which are probably much more varied than the tools.</p>

<p>Can you explain why you equate "photographics" (a product of photography) with drawing with software. I see what you are getting at but I don't see the definition you propose. Drawing with software is the realm of the graphist or graphic designer perhaps, as well as many engineers and architects who use computer assisted design. If you are referring to the often overblown use and often exaggeration of color, tone and form via Photoshop or the like, you are on somewhat solid ground I think, but that coiuld be clarified. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>When the relatively permanent-image making camera was developed, it was said that painting was dead.<br>

A Google™ will reveal that that discussion is still on-going, also without any resolution.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>the emotion is missing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Please document this assertion. I assume you have looked at every digital photograph produced in order to make a blanket statement.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>My photography is nothing special, but I've seen it make people in some circles laugh, cry, wince, smile, shout, talk, and ask for the same approach on their own subject matter. One thing that never really comes up is whether or not it's film or digital. My inclination to compose some shots or use light in a certain way wasn't any different when I was using Tri-X and printing in a darkroom or using any of a range of newer tools on the way to providing the recipient or other audience with the final image. <br /><br />I might reflexively point you, Rashed, to several hundreds of thousands of online discussions that cover this topic to death, but since anything that might stir up a little action here on PN is a good thing, I'm happy to chime in.<br /><br />The tool isn't the communication. Would my interest in this topic be more, or less apparent to you if I'd used a pen and paper, rather than a stream of bits over the internet, to respond to your opening comments? </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I think you'll find the roots of "photo" and "graphos" are Greek, not Latin; with the PH digraph representing the letter Phi.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Interesting, RJ, I went and spent some time on the etymology of the word after reading your post. You are right that it is ancient Greek. What was even more interesting is that several other terms were originally used, including heliography, photogeny, sunprint and sun picture. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Portrait on top was done in 1968 with 35mm Tri-X. The one on the bottom in 2010 with a D80. Both used a 50mm lens at a similar f stop. Rashed, are you telling me that there is a distinct difference in emotion between the photograph with film vs the one done digitally?</p><div></div>

[michaellinder]

<p>Another excursion into nonissueland . . . film vs. digital, blah, blah, blah</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Digital cameras gave us speed in photography but the emotion is missing.

 

Fifteen years into the new millennium and some people still think that it is merely a camera's capture

medium rather than a photographer's eye, skill, and understanding of light that create photographs having

the ability to release emotion, narrative, and stir imagination within a viewer. Astonishing.

[ellis_vener_photography]

If emotion, attention to lighting, framing, composition, timing, color, and tone relationships are missing from a photograph

it has nothing at all to do with the technology and everything to do with the creator of the photograph.

 

 

Otherwise your argument is the same comparing drawing with charcoal as opposed to pencil; pencil to pen and ink;

watercolor to oil paint; or oil to acrylic paint.

 

The great revolution in photography occurred in the overthrow of pictorialism by "straight" photography. Pictorialism never

died out however, and the current trnd towards making photographs into digitally created illustrations is its rebirth.